Cultural Heritage: Underwater Assets
	 — 
	Question

Lord Howarth of Newport: To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to strengthen protection of cultural heritage assets in waters beyond 12 nautical miles offshore.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government are continuing to work on implementing the provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Act. We are looking at options for strengthening protection of significant underwater cultural heritage assets beyond territorial waters. We are observing how signatories of the 2001 Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage go about implementing it. We support the principles of the annexe of the convention in respect of best practice and treatment of underwater cultural heritage.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, given the importance of historic sites in waters beyond 12 miles, ranging from the newly discovered HMS "Victory" to whole submerged landscapes, given the threat of commercial looting of historic wrecks and given the duty that Parliament has laid on the new Marine Management Organisation to take account of sites of historic and archaeological interest in the marine environment, as well as the requirement that environmental impact assessments should be produced where developments such as offshore wind farms are proposed, how will the Government ensure that the necessary historic and archaeological information is systematically archived and expert advice is made available to ensure that this marine heritage is properly considered and protected?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this question, which is important in the context of the establishment of the Marine Management Organisation and the work that has to be done in implementing the Act, which came into force last year. The MoD's Hydrographic Office has considerable data on what exists on the seabed, so we are not devoid of some appreciation of the size of the task. The National Monuments Record, which is part of English Heritage, is also looking at the question of marine data. However, my noble friend is quite right. There is considerable work to be done and it is expected that, under the new operations of the Marine Management Organisation and English Heritage, working practices will be established to guarantee the outcomes that my noble friend wishes to see.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, will English Heritage have the capability of undertaking this large task without extra funds, which do not seem to be available at present? Is the Minister considering increasing the funds to English Heritage to undertake this work? Without them, can the safety of HMS "Victory" be protected from those who would undertake looting-or, as they would call it, archaeology-and be secured for the future?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have safeguards and clear practice with regard to HMS "Victory", because it was a ship of the line involved in naval battle. We have clear protection for wrecks of that significance to the history of the nation. However, the data on what exists under the sea, a great deal of which will need care and protection, must be developed. English Heritage has indicated that it wants to play the part that I indicated a moment ago in response to my noble friend. The question of resources must flow from the identification of needs.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: What is the position with regard to ships that are war graves? Are they protected already under an international agreement?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is protection for ships that are war graves. On the issue that my noble friend raised, there is no real anxiety either about the great monuments under the sea, which are ships that served in the Navy and met disaster, or about ships that need to be protected because they are war graves in British waters. The problem is with the great deal of other historical data, of which at the moment we only have some. We will need to establish a great deal more as a result of the legislation established last year.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, if the Minister is so keen on maintaining underwater assets, could he get some of this country's fishing rights back?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Question was about marine archaeology rather than contemporary fishing. I think that the noble Lord was in attendance when I gave a clear exposition of the Government's strategy for reform of the common fisheries policy to the advantage of British fishermen.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, may I encourage the Minister to get from the Library Dean Acheson's great account of his time as Secretary of State, Present at the Creation, and to read the passage on Winston Churchill's speech to Truman after he became Prime Minister in 1951 about the desirability of the British having the command in NATO of the western approaches because of the scale of the maritime history of our nation that lay below those waters?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I take careful note of that reference and will renew my acquaintance with Dean Acheson's book. I emphasise that the reason why we have reservations about the convention, as have other countries with a naval history almost as significant as ours-I think of France, which has also not signed-is that we have such a rich heritage in our waters that we must be absolutely secure in the process whereby we safeguard it. There is no doubt that this is not just an issue of the western approaches; because the United Kingdom is an island state, we are particularly rich in these terms.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The first ever British submarine lies off the coast of north Wales at Rhyl. It was invented by a vicar, I think, from Merseyside. It has been subject to a lot of looting and there are a number of wind turbines in the vicinity. Will the noble Lord please ensure that what remains of the submarine is preserved?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I will certainly look into that. It is not part of my notes, but it sounds like exactly the type of relic that we would be very concerned to safeguard and I undertake to examine the issue immediately.

Businesses: Late Payment of Debts
	 — 
	Question

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they propose to protect small and medium-sized businesses from late payment of debts by large companies and government departments.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have an unprecedented record on protecting business from late payment and helping business to manage cash flow. We were one of the first countries in the world to introduce late payment legislation-we did so in 1998-and since October 2008 we have introduced a range of measures to support business to manage cash flow. Government departments are now paying invoices more quickly than ever and UK payment times for December 2009 showed a return to pre-downturn levels.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, that sounds very encouraging, but late payment is still continuing, together with the inability of small and medium enterprises to obtain bank credit, so they are suffering a double hit. What can the Government do about that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Viscount has identified an important consideration for businesses. The House will appreciate that there is a limit to the extent to which the law can be applied in business relations. The supplier may be able to invoke the law to make an impact on the purchaser, but that may not be in the long-term interests of its business relationships, so the law has some limit in this respect. However, as I indicated in the initial Answer, public authorities have an obligation in the context of the great difficulties over the past 18 months or so and we are ensuring that government, local authorities and the health service are meeting reasonable deadlines for the payment of invoices. That is of great importance.

Lord Barnett: I declare an interest as chairman of a small quoted company. Will my noble friend consider two ways in which the Government could provide positive help? First, while they cannot do a lot about private companies, will he consider the possibility that any grants from government sources would have to be repaid if there was evidence that small companies were being paid late? Secondly, in the case of HMRC and the deferral of tax payments, interest charges are so high that it is a positive incentive to pay early, so will my noble friend consider delaying interest charges for about six to 12 months?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the interests of the broad body of taxpayers have to be taken into account, so we do not want to be indulgent about late payment, although I know that my noble friend is not asking for that. On the more general issue of helping business, we are concerned, as I said, that public bodies should take account of these difficult times particularly for small suppliers. The public sector is setting an example and we hope that large businesses, which often command these resources from small suppliers, share exactly the same attitude and follow the same perspective.

Baroness Sharples: Is every government department checked for late payment to small businesses?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, they certainly are. My statement applies right across government.

Lord Cotter: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says but, despite that, a survey by the FSB last month disclosed that local government pays one in four invoices late and that central government and agencies pay one in three late. Will the Minister consider that again? As part of the solution there is a call for a social clause to be inserted into contracts. If payments are not made within time, there should be strong penalties.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord is right on the latter point and in 1998 we introduced legislation that assisted that. However, he will know that, as I indicated, using such sanctions may not be in the interests of the supplier's long-term relationship with the purchaser. Therefore, that is a limitation on the law. I hear what he says about public agencies involved in making payments. We have clear statistics and data, which are collected monthly, on the 10-day payment performance by central government across all departments to monitor and check that what I have said about payments is correct.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, the 1998 Act has not been successful because the only person who can sue is the creditor and he does not want to upset long-term relationships with his suppliers. Would it not be better if officials such as trading standards officers were empowered to sue late payers of debt on behalf of the several creditors that there usually are in cases of bad payers?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I will certainly take that constructive suggestion back-well, I know that it is intended to be constructive, but I am not sure that it gets around the problem. It may guarantee that the payment goes to the supplier on that occasion through the intermediary body, but it does not guarantee that the relationship between the supplier and the purchaser is enhanced. I will take my noble friend's point back; I know how experienced he is in the area and all government departments can learn from the experience of this House.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, what is the situation regarding payments to foreign contractors offering services overseas?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the code of practice, which we seek to enjoin, applies to all. Therefore, we would expect the broad norms that I identified for the relationship between government departments and others and between private companies to be followed. There is one additional factor, which is not to be overlooked. In our analysis of invoices-we looked closely at £400 million-worth of supplier invoices concerning a large number of small businesses-we found that a very high percentage was deficient in some respect. Therefore, the company seeking to make the payment had some cause for not making the payment as promptly as would otherwise be the case. We want to improve the understanding of small companies in particular on how to present their notes.

Credit Card Debt
	 — 
	Question

Lord Marlesford: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the level of credit card debt in the United Kingdom.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, according to the latest available data, published by the Bank of England on 1 March, total outstanding credit card debt was £61.5 billion in January 2010, on a seasonally adjusted basis.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for providing those figures. That is an increase of £8 billion on last year. With current interest rates being charged on overdue balances at 18 per cent, that means that credit card holders are being expected to find more than £900 million in interest every month. Are the Government satisfied that the credit card companies have adjusted their balance sheets to reflect the value of that debt, much of which may never be paid off? Otherwise, it suggests that there is a large reservoir of very toxic debt.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, takes a particular interest in these matters and is a great expert. We look forward to some amendments from him to the Financial Services Bill on the subject of credit cards and credit card debts. We take the view that credit is not a problem when it is used responsibly; indeed, it is an indicator of a growing economy. Credit cards are by far the most popular unsecured credit product, and the vast majority of credit card holders behave responsibly. About two-thirds of them pay off their balance in full every month. However, we are aware that some families get into difficulties with credit card debts. On some occasions, credit card companies and store card companies are behaving irresponsibly in the way that they encourage people to get into debt. For that reason, the Government have just concluded a review of credit and store card practices. The consultation finished on 19 January and the response will be published on 20 April. That considers a number of matters, including the rate of credit card interest.

Lord Peston: My Lords, has a law been passed while I was asleep, saying that people have to borrow using credit cards and not repay appropriately? In other words, do people not have to learn, as the Government have learnt, that if you borrow you eventually have to repay? To blame the credit and store card companies is to criticise the wrong people. It is people themselves who must be told that "I must have it now" is not a satisfactory way of life.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I agree with my noble friend to some extent, but it is important that responsible actions are taken by the credit and store card companies to ensure that they do not take advantage of vulnerable people. That is why the review that the Government have undertaken looks at such matters as how repayments are allocated to balances; whether higher minimum payment levels should be introduced; and how to reform unsolicited limit increases. These are all practices which have given rise to much representation. The results of that consultation will be announced in April.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, a moment ago was absolutely spot-on. Does it not apply to an even greater extent to the Government?

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I think we covered that question just a moment ago. This is a Question about credit cards.

Lord Cotter: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will recollect that my colleague Vince Cable warned about credit card debt three years ago. However, would the Minister agree that we face a double whammy situation? On the one hand, people are still being encouraged to borrow at a time when interest rates are at a 12-year high. On the other, a recent National Audit Office report shows that debt agencies and charities which are trying to help people who get into debt find that they are overwhelmed by the demand arising from people's needs. The resources are just not there. Would the Minister consider the first point and, particularly, that last point? If people cannot get the help, they cannot get out of trouble.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: The noble Lord is absolutely correct. It is important that agencies such as Citizens Advice, the Office of Fair Trading and, if necessary, the financial services ombudsman, should be available to help people when they need it. It is important that people have access to that advice.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, have the Government given any thought to the Post Office issuing a credit card? It has always seemed to be a very suitable service for the Post Office to give, and a convenient way for people to access credit.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, consideration is certainly being given to the Post Office expanding its range of financial services and products. There was mention earlier, in reviews of the Post Office, of it becoming a people's bank. Part of its role as a people's bank would undoubtedly be as a provider of credit cards. There has been a consultation on the role of the Post Office banking services which closed last week. There were more than 1,000 responses. I hope there may be some positive news on that front, too.

Lord Higgins: Would the Minister agree that the recent increase in interest charges on credit cards, when the cost in capital to these credit card companies is probably at its lowest ever level, is unjustified? Is this included in the review that is being carried out, and what are the Government going to do about it?

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: The question of the rates of interest charged by the credit card companies is part of the review and we take it very seriously. One of the issues that people face is that, when they pay off part of a balance which has a number of elements to it, most of the credit card companies allocate that payment to the cheapest loan and not to the most expensive. That does not seem a reasonable way to proceed. There are a number of companies which do it the other way round. It helps people much more if the most expensive loan is paid, not the cheapest.

Olympic Games
	 — 
	Question

Lord Addington: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the success of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver in relation to their preparations for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish to join me in congratulating Amy Williams on her gold medal, and Vancouver on its organisation of an excellent event. Attending the Games was an invaluable opportunity for Ministers and officials to study Vancouver's experience in staging an Olympic Games and, shortly, a Paralympic Games, to learn lessons for London 2012. In particular, Ministers and officials considered issues related to the Games' operations, security, human trafficking and legacy.

Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he indicate the Government's thinking about the role of parts of government in allowing the party atmosphere to function, which was so commented upon in Vancouver and is still going on? Do the Government have strategies in place for making sure that various tiers of government allow the party to take place and that it is not constantly stopped by the NIMBY aspect which says, "We should have a successful Olympics provided that it does not inconvenience me in any way, shape or form at any time"?

Lord Davies of Oldham: These are important general considerations for the organisation of the Games. We are concerned that the Games are the London Games and predominantly take place in London, but we want the whole country to participate in and enjoy them. That is why we are placing great emphasis on preparation for the Games, the cultural dimension prior to them and the legacy after them. There is no doubt that Vancouver's great success was its ability to canalize the enthusiasm of the Canadian nation for the Games. We need to do that for Britain in 2012.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, is the Minister aware, as I am sure he is, that during Olympic Games there is always a considerable increase in prostitution and particularly in trafficking? I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Human Trafficking. Will the Government give sufficient additional resources, particularly to the Metropolitan Police, to deal with this real problem?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness is right to identify an additional, sad burden that will undoubtedly be attendant on the Games in terms of the extra pressures upon the Metropolitan Police. We have a general security budget of significant proportions related to that. Officers were also sent to Vancouver to work with the Canadian police on exactly this issue and to draw experience from that. The House will know the great difference between Vancouver and London as regards the dimension of these potential problems. The Government are, however, fully seized of the necessity of meeting the threat in the way in which the noble and learned Baroness indicated.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, could the Minister say what action has been taken to ensure that genuine sports fans can obtain tickets for the 2012 Olympics, as they have been able to in Vancouver?

Lord Davies of Oldham: That is a very important point. We are concerned about the affordability of tickets in order that all can participate in the Games and not just those who can afford the sometimes very high prices at certain major events. We will not be able to do exactly what the South Africans did because the World Cup allows the country to dictate its own terms for the sale of tickets. We are governed by Olympic rules-the International Olympic Committee-and we cannot give favours to British people over Europeans because of our membership of the European Community.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Davies of Oldham: And therefore we are concerned to have a large number of tickets at a low price, as it was quite clear from the planning for the Games that that will encourage the fullest participation of our people.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, there is much to celebrate, and indeed emulate, as my noble friend and the Minister have very clearly pointed out: the volunteers, the enthusiasm and a British gold medal. However, does not the very sad death of Nodar Kumaritashvili demonstrate the clear need for a strong safety culture and a clear assignment of responsibility for safety and for liability for safety?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord is right to emphasise that point, although intrinsically the winter sports have a greater danger element to them than the majority of the summer Olympics because of the speed of many of the events. He is absolutely right that safety is a great priority, but the Government's record on health and safety stands out from that of any other country.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, following the removal of children from the indigenous people in British Columbia by missionaries in the 1930s, which separated them from their families and caused great harm to the local tribes, the organisers of the Games have taken this opportunity to highlight the importance of these ethnic indigenous peoples, including opening two cultural centres, one in Whistler, for them? Might we not learn from this in our Games and use that opportunity to promote the interests of our most vulnerable people-children in public care who have been separated from their families-and seek to ensure that they feel that they are the heart of what the Government are undertaking in the Games?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, at the risk of sounding complacent, I do not think that the Government need to learn from that example. After all, the House will recall that children from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds were absolutely crucial to the success of the London bid, which has been infused by concern for the safety and welfare of children and for the part that they can play in the Olympics, not least with regard to some aspects of voluntary support. We want them to participate in the cultural side of the Olympics as well as witness the sporting part. In this area, I do not think that the London Olympic Games will be anything other than a children's festival.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords-

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have reached 30 minutes.

Business of the House
	 — 
	Timing of Debates

Moved by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
	That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Shephard of Northwold set down for today shall be limited to two and a quarter hours and that in the name of Baroness Miller of Hendon to two and three quarter hours.
	Motion agreed.

Financial Services Bill
	 — 
	Order of Consideration Motion

Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham:
	That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Financial Services Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 36, Schedule 2, Clauses 37 to 39.
	Motion agreed.

Flood and Water Management Bill
	 — 
	Order of Consideration Motion

Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham
	That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Flood and Water Management Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 30, Schedule 1, Clause 31, Schedule 2, Clause 32, Schedule 3, Clause 33, Schedule 4, Clause 34, Schedule 5, Clauses 35 to 49.
	Motion agreed.

Education: Teaching Excellence
	 — 
	Debate

Moved by Baroness Shephard of Northwold
	To call attention to the significance for society and the economy of policies to provide and support teaching excellence in schools, colleges and universities; and to move for papers.

Baroness Shephard of Northwold: My Lords, I am delighted to have the chance to open today's debate, because there can be no disagreement in this House about the importance of education for a healthy society and a thriving economy. Education empowers individuals, endowing them with confidence and self-respect. It civilises society and enriches cultural life. The education of all its citizens to their utmost ability is vital for a nation's economic success, and, importantly, it fosters aspiration and thus social mobility.
	Last July's report, Unleashing Aspiration, said:
	"Social mobility matters to all of us because ... Economic growth and efficiency rely on nurturing ... all talent in society ... Equality of opportunity is a value cherished across our society and the political spectrum".
	Teaching excellence, whether in a nursery school or a university, drives the motor of effective education. It is the interaction between teacher and pupil which encourages and inspires.
	So where are we after 13 years of a Labour Government who came to power with the admirable mantra, "education, education, education"? I know that we will hear later of the extra investment that the Government have put into the education system, which is welcome. There has been an equally welcome development of many of the initiatives introduced, I have to say, by the previous Conservative Government, such as an emphasis on early-years education, increased opportunities for childcare, literacy and numeracy, and more emphasis on diversity and freedom for schools and colleges.
	But there have been other less welcome developments. The jury is out on the widened remit for Ofsted. No matter how talented its current leadership, Ofsted would be more effective if it were allowed to return to its strong focus on school improvement. The introduction of children's departments seems, sadly, so far to have done little to improve child protection, but it has involved local authorities in expensive and distracting reorganisation to produce departments that no professionals are qualified to run, the effects of which we shall see on schools and colleges in due course. Certainly, educational leadership at local level has suffered. Head teachers have been all but submerged by the sheer volume of instructions from the Government. Each head has had to read more in circulars in the past year than there are words in the King James Bible. I will come later to the cuts in higher education.
	If we take social mobility, which is much talked of at the moment, as a measure of the effectiveness of our education system, the Government's achievements of the past 13 years could be described as disappointing. The National Equality Panel has pointed out that we are a more unequal society than in 1997. The gap between the poorest and richest is at its widest since the Second World War. This is extraordinary after 13 years of a Labour Government. The report, Unleashing Aspiration, states that the professions key to social mobility have become more, not less, socially exclusive. The growth in higher education has benefited higher social classes far more than the rest of the population. In 1997, 8.5 per cent of 16 to 19 year-olds were not in work, education or training. Now, 13.4 per cent of that group are unoccupied. Nearly 40 per cent of children on free school meals fail to get a single grade C pass at GCSE. John Denham recently claimed that race is now a less severe impediment to life chances than poverty and social class. That is a success on one front, but what about the other two?
	Obviously, we know that education is only one element in achieving greater social mobility. Parenting, home environment, maternal and child health, and wealth are all factors in educational attainment. Research from the Institute of Education-I should declare an interest in that I have recently become the chairman of its council-finds that only 10 per cent to 20 per cent of variation in pupil outcomes is attributable to differences between schools. But schools matter, because teachers do. That is the core of my argument today. Excellent teaching matters at every level of education in schools, colleges and universities. I am focusing my remarks on schools, although much of what I have to say will, I think, be applicable to colleges as well, and I know that other noble Lords will talk about teaching in universities.
	In schools, IoE research has found that having a good rather than a weak teacher improves performance by more than one GCSE grade and that the gains from having a good teacher are greater for lower attainers. If we care about social mobility, we have to care about the quality of teachers. I am not at all a recent convert to the key importance of teachers for the success and well-being of our society and economy. As a former education officer and schools inspector, I have always believed that if just one thing can make a difference to education, it is the quality of teachers. If we think about it, teachers are the only means of delivering education reform. Even the most ambitious education Secretary eventually realises that he or she cannot be in every classroom. It takes longer for some, but most eventually get there.
	It is all too easy to undermine the confidence of teachers. I recall in the late 1960s-my goodness, how time passes-being involved in in-service training for heads and teachers in 550 primary schools across the county of Norfolk to teach them Nuffield maths, the so-called introduction of modern maths. This is history for some in this House, but not for everyone. What we did in the first instance was to remove the confidence from people who had been teaching what was known as number arithmetic perfectly satisfactorily, and make them uncertain about their skills and confidence vis-à-vis their pupils. We did put it right, but what an expensive, costly and actually rather ludicrous thing to do.
	The debate about education policy for the past 30 years has not entirely ignored the importance of good teaching, but it has focused in both parties more on the structure of the system and on schools than on those who work in them. IoE research has found that use of market forces to raise standards by introducing competition between schools, for example, has had limited impact, mostly because of the difficulties parents face in exercising a choice between schools. On the other hand, research findings from the IoE on the importance of the role of teachers are unequivocal.
	Structural change has quite a lot to be said for it if it enhances the ability of teachers to work well and confidently, and that should be the test. Teachers need to work in a well led school, and I am glad that the Government have developed extremely well the training of head teachers, which was initiated in my time as Secretary of State. Schools should be freed as much as possible from bureaucratic intervention by local authorities and government. They should work well with parents and their communities. They should be strongly inspected by good professionals. They need a clear curriculum framework and a respected, rigorous framework of tests and examinations. If all of that is called structure, and if the structure can provide those conditions, teachers will flourish. Like most professionals, they can be at their creative best if they have the security of knowing what is expected of them and are not subject to constant changes of expectation from government and the public.
	We all know that the influence of an inspiring teacher can be life-changing. One of this country's top astrophysicists with a global reputation was inspired by a Workers' Educational Association lecturer when he was 14. At the other extreme, children with poor life chances can be transformed by the teaching they get at schools like the Bishop Challoner schools in Tower Hamlets or at a first-class nursery school. Disaffected young people can be turned around by the right teacher, and the potential of a Nobel prize winner can be spotted and nurtured. The role of excellence in teaching and in fostering aspiration is clear. So how should education policy reflect the simple fact that what matters is teaching excellence?
	The whole question of esteem is very important; people want to join a respected profession. Raising pay is obviously important for that reason, although it is a slow and expensive way of improving teacher quality. Good and practical initial teacher training is as important as can be. Also effective is consistent investment in continuing professional development. The new masters degree in teaching and learning is an important step and should be rolled out more widely when funds allow. We certainly need flexibility in the system to reward good teaching and to deal with bad teaching. Such flexibility was one of the strengths of CTCs when they were introduced, and it is an aspiration for the new academies which the Government are introducing.
	Teaching as a career needs to be attractive to good graduates who have a grasp of and enthusiasm for their subject which can be passed on. At every level, the best teachers are those who are enthusiastic and highly knowledgeable; who have a depth of knowledge on which they draw to the benefit of their pupils. For that reason, we should make every effort to make it easy for talented people to turn to teaching in mid-career by developing and extending the Teach Now initiative. Good leadership of schools is crucial because well led schools have good discipline and provide a positive environment for teaching and learning. It is interesting that recent research indicates that head teachers who lead more than one school, a group of schools, are making a real difference to the performance and outcomes of all the schools they lead, particularly those in the most challenging environments. This, of course, is the federation model pioneered in Kent.
	We are all concerned about education. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that the role of excellent teaching in schools, colleges and universities is absolutely vital because of the effect that outstanding teachers have on learning, scholarship, disaffection and social mobility. It is therefore the more extraordinary and inexplicable that this Government-the Government of "education, education, education"-have imposed an arbitrary £1 billion cut on the higher education sector, which is the seed bed of education and teaching excellence. I am sure that when the Minister winds up she will address the issue because, whatever else she has to say about the Government's support for education and whatever else they have done, she will understand that that has to be set against the mighty blow they have inflicted upon it.
	I say again, it has been a huge privilege to introduce this debate, especially in your Lordships' House, where there is always great and warm support for education and learning. I beg to move.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, for introducing the debate. I am delighted to follow her because I agree with much of what she said and I think she will agree with much of what I have to say. Her passion for education is well known. I, too, have a passion for education and I shall focus also mainly on schools. I agree that school improvement, as the noble Baroness said, is key. I do not see, however, an overemphasis on structure.
	I taught in secondary schools for many happy years. I worked with some magnificent teachers, who did wonders with pupils of all abilities. Many of those pupils attained remarkable results despite being from deprived backgrounds. One of the key factors in creating a good team of teachers, a good atmosphere for learning and a desire to enable aspiration is, as the noble Baroness said, good leadership in schools, which is what I shall talk about today after I have said word about the teaching workforce.
	I shall refer to two agencies that support the development of good schools, the Training Development Agency for Schools and the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children's Services. I shall also illustrate the impact of these agencies with reference to a particular school, and mention the national support schools.
	The Training Development Agency seeks to secure an effective school workforce that raises educational standards and improves children's chances. Feedback from teachers has been very positive, and the government target for teacher recruitment has been met or exceeded in all subjects. The National College for School Leadership works to develop great leaders in schools, earlier settings and children's services, thus enhancing the chances for children.
	I shall give some evidence from the front line of the success of these initiatives. I received a letter recently inviting me to Alder Grange Community & Technology School in Rossendale, not far from where I grew up, and I shall make that visit shortly. The head teacher described some of the results of the national schools leadership programme and national schools support. Alder Grange staff are supporting two schools facing significant challenges. The challenge for one of the schools is in supporting and developing a new senior management team and improving results in English and maths. The other school has a major problem in maths and lacks resources. Alder Grange school is sharing its teachers and expertise with that school to improve performance.
	The head is also pioneering the establishment of a learning federation in the school's district, involving two high schools, Alder Grange and a Roman Catholic language college, and five primary schools. This federation will be the outreach centre for east Lancashire, linked to Edge Hill University and delivering and supporting the new masters degree in teaching and learning. The head wrote to me and spoke movingly of the dedication and commitment of his staff and the time that they spend on the school and their passion for it. Maybe all this excellence would have happened anyway, but probably not. The head is profuse in recognising the role of the national leadership scheme and the national school support scheme. I remember when I was in teaching-and I was dedicated, too-how much support I received from in-service teacher training and from sharing practice and ideas with other teachers.
	I am a school governor, and I see amazing commitment from teachers. They are full of ideas, they seem to be in school all hours-this is a primary school-they develop science weeks, reading weeks and multicultural weeks and they involve parents in learning. I could go on. All this stems from key leadership, a long-standing commitment to personal, social and health education in school, and good teamwork.
	The current generation of teachers has been described as the best ever. This does not surprise me. Supportive schemes like those that I have described will not only improve practice but give teachers a chance for reflection on practice. Does the Minister think that this is the best generation of teachers ever? Why might this be?
	A good teacher is one bedrock of a child's achievement and confidence. I still remember my good teachers and how they helped me. I salute the teaching profession. I think it is flourishing. It has some terrible challenges, but it works diligently to overcome them and we should applaud teachers' efforts.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, for securing this debate. This House has many opportunities to discuss and debate all aspects of education, including the excellent debate tabled last week by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on funding. In recent Bills and debates, your Lordships have considered types of school, curriculum, quality, discipline, welfare, transport and disability, but have perhaps spent too little time considering an issue that is of central importance to education, as the noble Baroness set out so clearly: the calibre of teachers and the quality of teaching. My noble friend, Baroness Walmsley, will focus on schools. I shall focus my remarks on colleges and universities.
	The Skills Commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Mike Tomlinson, has recently produced a report, Teacher Training in Vocational Education, which set out to ask whether there is a mismatch between teacher training and the education system as it is evolving. Among the 26 powerful recommendations is the call for a universal teaching qualification. Teaching vocational subjects successfully is at least as demanding and may indeed be more challenging than teaching academic subjects. The growth in diplomas and other practical secondary school provision, as well as increased numbers of 14 to 16 year-olds studying at FE colleges, makes the academic-vocational divide illogical, impractical and damaging to the learning experience.
	The report recommends measures to lead to parity of esteem and parity of professional recognition and pay, with convergence courses to ease transferability between qualified teacher status for schools and qualified teacher learning and skills for colleges. Currently, those qualified to teach vocational subjects are barred from full teaching posts in schools. Unless they retrain, they are rated as unqualified and earn about £6,000 a year less than their peers.
	The Association of Colleges puts forward convincing arguments for a fresh approach to energise young people, particularly those at risk of becoming NEET. Colleges should be able to admit young people from the age of 14 to offer them courses to engage in learning and acquire the skills for adult life. FE lecturers would need to ensure that they were trained in safeguarding and behaviour management for the younger age group, but that is not a major barrier and the benefits would be considerable.
	There have always been inspirational teachers with few orthodox credentials-I am sure that noble Lords remember some of their own; I certainly remember some of mine-who encourage, enthuse and open opportunities to their students. Particularly in FE, there has been an invaluable infusion of practitioners who were masters of their craft or trade. Until recently they could teach without training, but now they have to fulfil a statutory requirement of in-service training.
	The 2002 strategy Success for All stated the intention that by 2010 all teachers and trainers should be appropriately qualified, but it went on to say:
	"We recognise that there may be exceptions and have no wish to drive out competent part-time teachers-particularly those combining a small amount of teaching with employment in a relevant occupation-by a heavy-handed approach to regulation".
	Will the Minister say what monitoring has taken place to ensure that practitioner teachers in FE have not been driven out by regulation? Also, what steps are being taken to ease transferability between teachers in colleges and those in schools?
	The situation is somewhat different in universities, which not only teach but play a key role in teacher training. To maintain teaching excellence within higher education is of central importance to students, employers and the national economy. The quality of teaching in universities is supported by state-of-the-art technology, as well as by exchanges among peers, all of which contributes to a stimulating learning environment.
	Universities are autonomous bodies, with teaching and research both key parts of their work. As their own awarding bodies, they continually assess their systems and courses to ensure that they are fit for purpose. It is noteworthy to see from a recent survey by Universities UK that universities have spent substantial amounts of their additional fee income on improved support and facilities for teaching and learning. However, it is a matter of concern that the 4.6 per cent reduction in public funding for teaching will create additional pressure on the ability of universities to protect and enhance high-quality higher education.
	As the HE sector constantly improves its quality assurance system, it seeks to ensure that it meets future challenges and that it is robust, transparent and cost-effective. There are never grounds for complacency, but it is evident that the UK model for assuring quality and standards in universities is well respected internationally and has influenced parallel developments worldwide. We all know that praise from students is praise indeed. In a recent NUS survey, 89 per cent of students rated the quality of their teaching and learning experience as either good or excellent. However, given financial and resource restraints on the higher education sector, will the Minister say what emphasis the Government place on maintaining the teaching excellence of those who teach in universities?
	Teachers are key to the quality of life of individuals and to the well-being and prosperity of the country. If we need any reminder of the calibre of our teachers, we need only look to the annual Teaching Awards and other celebratory occasions that bring to public attention the extraordinary dedication and creativity of those who choose the teaching profession. We hope that the Government will address the analysis and recommendations made in this debate. I look forward to the Minister's response.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, for bringing back to us a debate on services for children. She does a great service to children by consistently bringing such matters up and hits the nail on the head by talking about excellence in teaching. When the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was Minister of State for Education, I recall him returning from Finland and remarking to me that it trains its teachers for five years. We really need to invest in our teachers if we are to get excellent results.
	First, if our children are not ready and willing to learn, our teachers will not be able to have an effect, however good they are. Secondly, it follows that we need to refocus on the early years so that children get the best start and are ready to learn when they get to primary school. Thirdly, we need to recruit the best people into teaching and to give them excellent training. It worries me that pedagogy is being overlooked in the rush to get recruits into education. We need to give them autonomy; we need to respect their professionalism.
	I have three points and now come to the first. In 2004, the Office for National Statistics reported that 10 per cent of children between five and 15 had a mental disorder. Three years on, two-thirds of them still had a mental disorder. I do not wish to overstate the case, but there is serious mental ill health among a significant minority of our children, which we need to address. The Place2Be, a charity based in primary schools, has been described by New Philanthropy Capital as providing therapeutic counselling for children in primary schools throughout the UK. Its work ranges from a drop-in centre-Place2Talk-where children can talk about their everyday worries, to long-term one-to-one counselling for children with more serious difficulties and support for their parents. Counselling is provided by volunteers, who are either qualified counsellors or are in counselling training. Their work is closely supervised by qualified counsellors based in the schools. Last year, the Place2Be worked with 35,000 children in 128 schools and provided over 3,000 hours of counselling to parents. The Place2Be's results, based on several years of systematic evaluation, are impressive, with 65 per cent of children and 89 per cent of parents showing increased well-being. Counsellors are located permanently within the schools where they work and become a regular feature of school life. That makes it easier for children to seek help and minimises the sense of stigma. As one Place2Be counsellor put it:
	"It can be difficult for families if a child is referred to the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service because then they think of themselves as patients, whereas the ethos of The Place2Be is that, sometimes, we all need a bit of support".
	There is a dedicated Place2Be room within each school-a bright, friendly and welcoming environment where young children can explore their difficulties through talk or play. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that more children have access to that service?
	Secondly, when I visited a primary school last Friday, Mrs Brenda Bigland, the head, impressed on me the importance of ensuring that all her staff are clear from their first day in the school about what to expect in terms of behaviour from children, and that they ensure that the children behave in the required way. She has close ties with the parents to ensure that they support that. Edward Melhuish, professor of human development at Birkbeck College, University of London, emphasised in his talk to the Michael Sieff Foundation last September that we invest too little when children are most susceptible to change in the early years and too much in their later life, when they are least susceptible to change. I pay tribute to the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith and Graham Allen MP for their important work in this area. We must achieve good-quality provision and keep up with our competitors. When can we anticipate access to good-quality early years care being open to all parents, free, just as our primary and secondary education is open to all parents and free?
	My third point is on pedagogy. In Finland, which tops the PISA league in numeracy, literacy and science, 90 per cent of the applicants for teaching training are rejected. Finland takes the very cream of the applicants and then insists on giving them a full pedagogical training. I understand that they undertake a range of good-quality placements for about two years. The applicants gain a good understanding of the philosophy of education and child development. This is fundamental if we are to see a significant improvement for all our children. Teachers need to be able to reach out to the most vulnerable. My formula for success is the following: children need to be ready and able to learn; mental health services and social workers need to be placed in schools to support staff; children need excellent early years provision; and we need to raise teacher training through the roof and then give teachers the autonomy to do what they need to do.

Lord Giddens: My Lords, I should like to talk about teaching and teaching excellence in the context of the research universities-the environment which I know best. I started teaching in universities quite a few years ago. The noble Baroness made the observation that time flies and I agree. When I started teaching in a university we got no help at all with how to prepare lectures or to engage with students. There was no system of evaluation that students could use to give their opinions on courses and there was no real monitoring of the academic quality of research productivity. Most of my colleagues were very responsible but there were a few notable "lucky Jims" in the university in which I originally found myself. This situation lasted for quite a few years in British universities. I went to teach in the University of California not long after that for a considerable period, which already had very developed systems of evaluation whereby students rated their teachers and quality was monitored.
	In 1997, the Labour Government came to power and introduced a number of innovations. These included the setting up of the Research Assessment Exercise, the introduction of the Quality Assurance Agency and, more recently, the Higher Education Academy. The Research Assessment Exercise is popular among academic staff, or is at least regarded in a positive light by them, and has overall significantly helped to elevate research productivity and research standards. The Quality Assurance Agency was met with much more hostility, especially early on in the research universities. I remember that in 2000, the Vice Provost of University College London, in his own words, "declared war" on the Quality Assurance Agency. He did so with some reason because at that point it was too bureaucratic and intrusive and tended to subvert the purposes for which it was introduced. Over the years there has been a softening of its relationships, especially with the top universities, which was very desirable. It has operated a light touch and that relationship has matured. The QAA has demonstrated its importance as an organisation responsible for maintaining standards of excellence in universities. It has now evolved into something a bit different from what it was originally and that is surely a good thing. Over the years since then, as universities have experienced a further period of expansion, all have introduced training for teachers, have profited from what was on offer to improve standards of teaching, and have introduced assessment systems, monitored in part by the QAA. This has been a positive experience.
	However, I add three caveats about what teaching excellence actually means in the research universities. In these respects there are some differences between the top universities and schools. First, I am against treating students as consumers. Education is not just a product to be lifted off a supermarket shelf. Research at the University of Warwick shows that where this has happened in universities, students have tended to internalise a passive attitude towards education. Teaching should be an active and to some extent research-drive encounter between the teacher and student.
	Secondly, I am against too much standardisation of teaching. It is good to be able to use information technology to produce standard bibliographies for students but there has to be a role for the eccentric and maverick, especially in the context of the research universities. The teacher who most influenced me-the best teacher I ever had-could barely string two words together. I am not recommending that but he had a quality and charismatic appeal that someone who talks in a standardised way would not. It is crucial to recognise the diversity of ways in which teachers can reach students.
	Thirdly and finally, in the context of a research university, it is crucial to recognise that teaching is part of a seamless experience of being in a research environment, it is being in the same place as world-class scholars, and it is being in the same place as original research is being carried on. It is a bit like living in London-which I like not because I am always going to the theatre but because I can if I want to. That creates a kind of buzz in the city and this is true of a research-driven university.
	Henry Adams once said that,
	"chaos often breeds life, where order breeds habit".
	Noble Lords will get the gist that originality has long been and must continue to be the driving force of the research universities.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Shephard has initiated this debate. In the time available, I, too, shall focus on teaching in universities. I declare an interest as a university teacher. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, a graduate of the University of Hull. I agree with every word he said. I am delighted to be followed by a former colleague at the University of Hull, the noble Lord, Lord Parekh.
	Our universities are among the best in the world, regularly outstripping competitor nations. That is the case with research but our universities also demonstrate teaching excellence. That is reflected in the various reviews that are undertaken of teaching. The Student Pulse surveys show that the UK and the USA have the highest perceived attractiveness as study destinations for international students, despite the costs involved in studying in the UK. There is also satisfaction among students with the learning experience at our universities. This is reflected in the annual National Student Survey.
	This excellence exists and has been maintained despite the fact that investment in higher education is below the OECD average and notably below that of our key competitors, not least the USA and Australia. The OECD Education at a glance statistics show that UK public expenditure on tertiary education institutions in 2005 was 0.9 per cent of GDP, against an OECD average of 1.1 per cent. Over the past 20 years, universities have had to cope with a notable expansion in student numbers but for most of the period without the increase in funding keeping pace. Some of the pressures on resources were absorbed through improvements in productivity and efficiencies. The university sector maintains excellence despite not having the same level of support provided in competitor nations. It has maintained excellence during a period of rapid expansion and having to accommodate a diverse range of student needs, for most of the time with a decline in the unit of resource.
	Since then, as has been mentioned, there has been some increase in funding-the unit of resource has improved. Universities have used variable fee income to support teaching, including through investment in the physical infrastructure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, mentioned. However, as the 2008 report of the Financial Sustainability Strategy Group recorded, new costs and pressures constitute a threat to sustainability, not least in the accessibility of staff to students, and in the physical infrastructure and student support services. Those pressures are now more severe as a result of the latest funding cuts. As the chairman of Universities UK said in his letter to HEFCE on funding for 2010-11, these represent a reduction of 4.6 per cent in the unit of funding.
	What, then, can be done to help maintain high-quality teaching? It is clear that funding is crucial. Universities await the outcome of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Maddingley. However, I have one practical point unrelated to funding which I have raised previously. As my noble friend Lady Shephard has emphasised, fundamental to good teaching is good teachers. We are in danger of losing academics, not least in some cases to the USA. What attracts good teachers, and enhances motivation, is an attractive working environment. What has dispirited and discouraged academics has been the sheer burden of bureaucracy. Among the several recommendations of the Financial Sustainability Strategy Group is "minimising regulatory burdens". That recommendation is worth stressing. There have been attempts to move to lighter-touch regulation, but, as I have pointed out in this House previously, a lighter touch is not the same as a light touch. Regulation has significant costs, not least in terms of staff time and morale. Top-down regulation, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, touched on, has the danger also of encouraging dull uniformity and creating risk-averse universities.
	We need to get away from a level of bureaucracy that militates against good teaching. If we can do that, teachers can continue to innovate, to utilise new techniques, and to extend work-based experience and distance learning. Mechanisms are in place-as, again, the noble Lord, Lord Giddens touched on-to encourage innovation and disseminate best practice.
	There is a reason why we have universities that are world leaders, and it is not the regulatory regime in higher education. I invite the Minister to explain what is being done to reduce the regulatory burden on universities and to move towards a light-touch, not simply a lighter-touch, regime. As the pressure on universities becomes greater, the need to lighten the burden grows more pressing.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, for securing this debate and introducing it with the commitment and wisdom that we have come to expect of her. It is also a pleasure and privilege to follow two of my very distinguished friends and colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Norton of Louth. There is no premeditation or conspiracy in the three of us referring to each other; it is simply that they have both made wonderful contributions over the years and certainly to this debate.
	I shall part company with them in so far as I shall not speak about universities, although I am a university professor and an ex vice-chancellor; I shall rather talk about pre-university education, especially schools. We are concerned about the quality of teaching in our schools, but we need to remember that excellence is a product of three important factors. First, it has something to do with talented, inspiring and highly motivated teachers; secondly, it requires able and intellectually curious pupils; and, thirdly, it needs an institutional structure which provides the environment in which teachers enjoy maximum respect, while some sanctions are maintained against those who do not measure up to the expected standards. In other words, excellence is not simply a quality which teachers have or do not have; it is a relationship which develops between teachers and students within a particular environment. It is a three-dimensional process.
	When we therefore want to encourage excellence, it is not enough to concentrate simply on teachers. You might have first-class teachers, but if they spend all their time disciplining students or harbouring a sense of inferiority because society does not value them, it is obvious that we shall not get the best out of them. If one wants to encourage excellence, one has to concentrate on all the three factors that I have mentioned; namely, how we attract the best teachers, how we ensure that pupils are keen and equipped to learn, and what environment is most conducive to the process of teaching and learning. Given the time available to me, I shall concentrate only on factors one and three.
	Obviously, we must raise the comparative status of the teaching profession. In our country, sadly, teachers are not as highly valued as they are in the rest of Europe, or even in India and China. That is a great tragedy. The question is: how do you bring about a cultural shift such that the teaching profession can have the same kind of status as university professors, doctors, lawyers and senior executives? What we must do in order to raise the status of the profession is to respect their expertise, attract the best, protect their dignity by punishing acts of student indiscipline, give them state honours far more than we seem to have done, tell stories about teachers who have profoundly influenced us, and give them higher public visibility on television and radio. We should also train them properly, encourage them to pursue in-service training and give them full registration as teachers only after they have successfully completed two or possibly three years of induction. We should also ensure that new teachers are properly mentored and that generous provisions are made for their professional development. We should certainly take a very dim view of teachers who fail to rise to the standard we expect of them; here, the General Teaching Council has an important role to play.
	I turn now to factor three: the institutional environment in which teaching can flourish. We have gone too far in institutionalising the culture of suspicion and centralised control. We do not trust our teachers to design their own curriculum and we constantly require them to prepare pupils for all kinds of tests, with the result that all their time is spent on making sure that the right kinds of results are produced. This does not happen in other countries. Those at the top of the OECD list do not do any of those things. Take Finland, for example, which was referred to earlier. There are no tests there. Schools design their own curriculum. There is no national inspection. There are no league tables. Once a year pupils may take a national test in one subject. There is something to learn from this. Finland is obviously a small country of 5.3 million people and is homogeneous in a way that ours is not, but we can nevertheless learn something from it.
	We do need strong central checks and targets, but at the same time we must realise that they should not stifle the autonomy of teachers or treat them as if they were lazy and dull people who can be made to behave well only by the rod of punishment. The Labour Government have done much to improve the quality of teaching. Teachers' salaries have increased by 20 per cent, nearly £100 billion has been spent on schools since 1997 and new kinds of schools have been designed. I am glad that the Government are beginning to ease up on their earlier tendency to exercise centralised control.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to my noble friend for allowing us to draw attention in this debate to the importance of teaching at all levels of the education system. In the few minutes available, I will speak about teaching in schools.
	I cannot offer too high praise for the work of teachers in our schools. Day after day they offer children and young people in their care the gift of their knowledge and their commitment, enhancing the life chances of many, and enriching the lives of those they teach, often in ways which last throughout their lives. I freely pay tribute to this Government for their good intentions towards the education of our young people. Money for schools has been generously increased, and I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us this in her winding-up speech. But money is not, and demonstrably has not been, enough to guarantee quality, and those who work in education have paid a very heavy price for the extra finance that they have received. The Government's obsession with control from the centre, as other noble Lords have said, has too often sapped the enthusiasm of teachers, lecturers and heads, and belittled their professionalism. They have found themselves restricted by the imposition of national tests and targets, heavy-handed and unprofessional inspection, league tables based on rigid criteria which often miss the real quality of what is being achieved, and bureaucratic guidelines and protocols.
	Despite the generous input of funds, our schools today have not succeeded in tackling the fundamental inequalities of both opportunity and outcome. In recent years, and as a result of the Government's obsession with test and examination targets, the gap between the poorest children in our society and of those more fortunate has widened. Nearly 40 per cent of those eligible for free school meals fail to achieve a single C grade at GCSE. At A-level, out of 75,000 of those eligible for free school meals, only 5,000 were entered for A-levels, and only 189 got three As to take them on to university. This is simply unacceptable.
	The past 12 years have seen far too many initiatives and too much reorganisation, both at individual school level and in government departments. It is a matter of astonishment and sadness that a Government who promised education as their priority have no department with the word "education" in its title. Central control and detailed guidelines, followed by intrusive inspection, do not give an experience of excellence to the pupil or student. The shadow Minister for Schools has written:
	"We must learn from the most educationally successful countries in the world, the common factor of which is their relentless focus on teaching. The commitment, talent and skill of teaching staff are the most important factors in determining the quality of education which a child will receive".
	I could not agree more.
	An inspirational teacher can literally change lives. At its best, teaching is a magic process that lights up the imagination of young people, draws out their curiosity and gives them lifelong skills and understanding. However, the system of inspection looks at the detail of school organisation and raw measures of test scores, which fail to capture this essential quality. One Ofsted inspector told a Sunday Times reporter that inspectors were,
	"actively discouraged from inspecting what really matters".
	This is what teachers and heads are also telling us about the inspection regime. The testing regime has the same basic fault. It tests the minimum-what can easily be tested-instead of the wider evidence of what an educated child or young person has achieved.
	One national expert in early-years education put it succinctly when she said that,
	"a teacher knows that the only test of whether a child can really read is when he or she picks up a book and settles down to read for the sheer pleasure of reading".
	Tests do not show that. Good inspection could, of course, but Ofsted inspectors pay attention only to test results. What is true for reading is true for almost every subject, at any age.
	My noble friend is right to have drawn attention to the impact of excellent teaching on the economy and society. Young people learn if they are well taught. If they are well taught, they leave school ready to take their place in the adult world, with the essential skills of literary fluency, mathematical proficiency, scientific understanding and, most importantly, curiosity about the world they live in and confidence in themselves and their future. Employers ask for these simple attributes and cannot understand why, after years of investment and initiatives, dozens of education Acts and a plethora of quangos, they still find too few prospective employees with these basic qualities.
	I am proud that my party has vowed to raise the status of the teaching profession and restore to teachers and heads their professionalism and creativity. The beneficiaries of this policy will be the young people who are the future both of our economy and of our society.

Baroness Morris of Yardley: I welcome this debate and join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, on introducing it. She knows that I share her commitment and interest: perhaps it is former Secretaries of State who have also been teachers who end up having their view confirmed that teaching rather than structural change makes the difference. Before making my few comments, I draw the attention of the House to my declarations in the Register of Members' Interests, particularly in respect of this debate, as chair of the Institute of Effective Education at the University of York.
	I will not go over the evidence that the noble Baroness gave when she talked about the importance of teaching. I will say only that that academic evidence is behind what we all know: that in some schools, some children do well in some lessons, and in some exceptional schools, some children still do poorly in some lessons. Every parent breathes a sigh of relief when they know who their child's teacher is for the next year in primary school, because instinctively they know that teachers make a difference. Even in good schools that are well led, there can be poor teaching-and the reverse is also true.
	This should be the golden age of teaching and learning, because of a number of factors. First, the quality of people coming into the profession is better than ever. The quality of leadership in our schools is second to none. What we know about teaching and learning, and what we have learnt about how the brain works, should give us the ability to be more effective in advising our teachers and enabling them to decide how to go about their job. However, when you look at the history of education in this country, it is not one of teaching and learning, but a history of structural change. It is a history of what we call the schools, who can go to them and who makes the decisions, not of the quality of the decisions made. The history of health in this country is one of medicines, interventions and better quality operations. When a hospital fails, we do not try to give patients the power to choose another hospital. We go in there and work out what in the practice of medicine did not go right. The different cultures say a lot.
	There have been many successful government policies in teaching and learning. If anything, the noble Baroness was slightly ungenerous in acknowledging them. For the record, I will cite a few. The literacy and numeracy strategies were essentially professional development strategies. The National College for School Leadership gives us not only excellent leaders, but also excellent heads of department. It also takes promising young people in their second year of teaching and trains them for leadership. We now have an induction year when teachers can have time off to reflect on their own practice and to watch others teach. We also have teacher appraisal and teacher workforce reform.
	How do we take this forward? This is where we have never quite got it right. It is one thing to know that teaching makes the difference: the question is whether we have the policies in place to enable more of our teachers to teach at the highest standard. In this I agree with the noble Baroness, who said that structural change should be judged by how much more effectively it allows teachers to teach in schools, and not by who ends up going through the gates.
	The Government can get this wrong. Teaching matters, but this does not mean that the Government should have policies on how teachers should teach. If anything belongs to teachers and their profession, it is how they carry out their business in the classroom. Yet both parties have policies on this. The Conservatives have a policy for the next election that will instruct teachers to set children in their class-a policy that will tell teachers how to group the 30 children they have in their class, rather than leaving it to their professional decision. My party does the same when it emphasises one type of phonics and one catch-up reading scheme. They are good-there is nothing wrong with them-but others are good as well.
	It is the politicians' job to put in place an infrastructure to make sure that teachers make effective decisions. I trust teachers as much as anyone else in this country, but I do not trust them to make wise decisions unless they have an infrastructure that will enable them to do that. There should be no going back to leaving it to teachers because they know best. They will do a good job if they have the tools. I will put forward four ideas that should make up that policy.
	First, we must trust the evidence about what works in practice in teaching. Secondly, research coming out of our universities on teaching and learning must be of good quality, and relevant to what teachers need evidence about in their classrooms. Thirdly, teachers need the time and skills to reflect on their own practice, and the opportunity to read about the latest in teaching and learning. Imagine a doctor who was never given any time to read about the latest drugs or best practice surgery. Fourthly, we need an easy way for teachers to get access to evidence about what works in teaching and learning. Maybe we need a NICE for teaching, as we have for medicine.
	I believe passionately in the role that politics can play in education. That is why I have been in politics and education all my life. However, what works in teaching and learning, and how we enable teachers to make effective decisions in that domain, should be beyond political debate.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in expressing gratitude to the noble Baroness for initiating the debate so inspiringly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, that it is very difficult to talk about excellence in teaching at all ages in the same way. I shall confine my remarks to teaching in primary schools and year seven in secondary schools.
	I believe that academic qualifications are important, as the Conservative Party has emphasised. All teachers should have academic qualifications because a recognition of the importance of learning and an eye for outstanding intelligence and imagination is most likely to be found among good graduates. But there may be other, perhaps even more important qualities. First, teachers of these years must love children and find them sympathetic, funny and worth talking to. This is a matter of character and imagination rather than intellectual achievement or training.
	Secondly, there is an absolute need that in these years teachers should have clear moral beliefs about decent behaviour both in the classroom and in society as a whole, and they should be prepared, by example as much as by precept, to pass on those values. This needs to be said because many young teachers are embarrassed to think that this is part of their task. They may also hesitate to seem to be imposing a specific kind of morality or ethic on children because they are constantly told that we live in a multicultural society and that all value systems are to be respected equally. Of course, many of them have children from many different moral backgrounds in their classes. Teachers must be taught and must be the kind of people who can assert their own moral values. Virtues of fairness, honesty, kindness and truthfulness are not culturally relative. They are common virtues to all humanity and teachers must learn to be open and unembarrassed at teaching them.
	Thirdly, there is something that can be taught in teacher training colleges. Although it is now supposed to be part of the training of all teachers, which is greatly to the credit of the present Government, I am not sure that it is yet given the priority that it deserves. That is the skill, particularly in primary schools and year seven in secondary schools, of picking out children who have problems that must be addressed urgently if they are to make any progress and stay in the educational system at all. Teachers must be constantly alert to the possibility of behavioural problems that will not go away without intervention; they must be alert to the possibility of sensory problems and those that cluster round dyslexia and other difficulties in processing information. Such problems can be alleviated and remedied, or at least got round if, and only if, they are noticed at an early stage.
	I believe that year seven is especially important in this regard, and here there is a problem. Those who teach this group are for the most part trained as secondary school teachers, and rightly so, because children must move on from the primary to the secondary ethos. Many pupils are quite ready to move on but there remains the need for constant monitoring of children's progress during this year, which is perhaps not emphasised enough when talking about teaching. The difference between success and failure between the children whose talents will be wasted and those whose talents will be encouraged is enormously important to pick up during this year. Children come from different schools; some will have noticed their problems but others will not. In any case account has to be taken of the difficulty arising simply from moving from a small school to a large one, which may cause its own problems.
	I think of year seven as the most crucial year of all. Excellence in teaching in this year must be a matter of constant vigilance and all teachers must be taught to exercise it.

Baroness Wall of New Barnet: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, on securing this debate. The issue surely goes to the heart of education and learning. Before I offer you my insight into how important it is, perhaps it is worth reflecting for a few moments on how we might define the concept of excellence in teaching.
	What makes an excellent teacher, whether they are in school, college or university, or even in the workplace? I am sure that we can all immediately call to mind-many of us have shared this today-those teachers and mentors who influenced us, who guided us to success, and who retain a place in our affections. But what was it about them that left an enduring legacy? I suggest that many excellent teachers share a number of qualities. Above all, they are enthusiasts for their subject and can communicate that enthusiasm to their students. Many are experts in their field, highly trained and knowledgeable.
	Other excellent qualities might include their ability to relate their teaching to the wider world outside the classroom in which the student spends their time. They can show how one concept links to another to create a coherent picture and how lessons learnt today will prepare the student for tomorrow. We all know excellent teachers, so what else do we know about the impact they have on students? An excellent teacher does not see the self-limiting beliefs which many students may place on themselves. As a result, you will often hear a student say, "The teacher made me believe I could do anything", and this is a huge boost to the low self-confidence which cripples some students, both young and old. An excellent teacher is able to convince a student that aspiration, ability and effort add up to a winning combination, no matter the subject. They can ignite aspiration, draw out ability, and inspire effort.
	Now we come to the crux of the debate for me. How do policies which encourage excellent teaching impact on society and the economy? Teaching excellence is the bedrock on which any student's future attitude to learning is built. Poor teaching can damage an individual's prospects for years, as they disengage with learning and decide that education is not for them. Without excellent teaching the Government would be wasting education funding; employers would be wasting their training support; and individuals would be wasting their time, effort, and often their money. I think that we can all agree that those in the teaching profession, from primary schools to further education colleges, universities and training providers, require no lectures from us on how to be good teachers. What they need is as much encouragement and practical support that we can offer.
	I recently had the good fortune to visit North Lindsey College in north Lincolnshire. It is a tremendous example of how teaching excellence across a spectrum of subjects and qualifications can make a real difference to a local economy and community. Annually, between 600 and 700 young people go through its 14 to 16 skills centre. Provision is highly flexible and responsive, and it offers young people outstanding learning in a supportive and safe environment. Teaching is excellent and results achieved are remarkable. For example, GCSE grades, projected by the school, on average rise by two grades.
	The centre is an outstanding success and is responsible for changing the lives of many young people in bringing together pre-16 and post-16 education for the benefit of the wider community. In doing so, it continues to make a major contribution locally and nationally and it has set a standard for the centre's international partners. The skills centre has embraced the educational reform agenda, and has developed a model that provides measurable performance indicators in all aspects of its provision delivery.
	The centre is also spreading good practice by advising schools, colleges, local authorities, the Learning and Skills Council and overseas partners on how to develop and implement skills centres for 14-to-16 provision.
	All that has been achieved in a very challenging local environment where the local community has a number of deprived wards. In 2006, around 27 per cent of the college's learners came from areas of social and economic deprivation. About 25 per cent of employers in the sub-region report skills gaps in their workforce.
	Not only is the college working with 14 to 16 year-olds, importantly, it trains apprentices for hundreds of employers in the region. Many of the apprentices, after gaining their qualifications with the college, remain working in the region, and therefore contribute to the economic prosperity of the town and county. Some have gone on to become employers themselves and have continued to work with the college. Collectively, apprentices everywhere add real economic value to UK plc.
	That is an exciting departure from the status quo, brought about by the college's offering examples of teaching excellence. It also demonstrates how truly excellent teachers make new provision and do not stand still. We want excellent teachers; let us support them.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but want to point out that when the digital clock shows "5", five minutes have been completed. We are now biting into the ministerial time, so the response will not be as long as Members would wish. If Members could stick to the five minutes, we would be helped.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate on a subject dear to her heart and on which she speaks with the wisdom of experience.
	I am always conscious in your Lordships' House that we have the benefit of having several former Secretaries of State for Education among us, whose knowledge greatly illuminates our debates. I can scarcely forget that fact, given that I am sometimes erroneously placed among their number when I receive letters intended for the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. Having established that I am not a former Secretary of State for Education, I must declare that I am a governor of Bolton School, a trustee of the Transformation Trust, a trustee of AGBIS and chancellor of the University of Bolton.
	No effort to improve standards in education can be effective without acknowledging the debt that we owe to teachers. However comprehensive the curriculum or rigorous the exams, it is the teaching staff in schools, colleges and universities who are the gatekeepers of knowledge and whose expertise we rely on to impart it to the next generation. I am sure that I am not alone in recalling the television adverts for the Teacher Training Agency, as it then was, in 1998, with the slogan, "No-one forgets a good teacher". That sentiment is undoubtedly true. Whether in primary, secondary, further or higher education, we can all remember an individual who enthused us with their energy and love of their subject.
	I was lucky to have two. The first was Miss Winfield, my history mistress, who should have written for soap operas. She was brilliant at just getting you to a point in the narrative when you wanted to know what happened when the bell went. You rushed off to the library to look at Bindoff's Tudor history, but it was nothing like as exciting as Miss Winfield. The second was Miss Morley, who showed tenacity. She taught me French. She wrote in my report: "Patricia has a wonderful French accent. It is a great tragedy that she can't speak the language". She continued where all others would have given up, and the only French exam that I ever passed was my O-level, which she regarded as one of her greatest triumphs.
	The sad fact is that too many teachers do not feel remembered. They often feel undervalued or disillusioned by the system that they find themselves in. You have only to read the comments on the TES and the THES websites and other forums to see that frequent promises by government to cut down on unnecessary bureaucracy have not solved those problems, as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth so powerfully explained. That matters not just for the morale of those teaching-important though that is-but because of the effect on recruitment and retention of high-quality staff. Despite the critical acclaim for the TTA adverts I mentioned, they were not a great success in increasing numbers going into the profession. It takes more than positive messages; it also takes positive action.
	It is absolutely right that we should do these things, because only by persuading the best and brightest to realise their potential to teach will we be able to inspire young people to make the most of their potential. Only by getting more truly excellent teachers into the system will we provide the role models to champion best practice. Just as it is important in schools to open the door to talented people from different careers, it is equally important for FE colleges and universities to make full use of links with business and industry.
	In January of this year, I had the honour of becoming the first chancellor of the University of Bolton. Bolton is a most unstuffy institution. It is friendly and welcoming and does much to encourage and support students from untraditional backgrounds. It prides itself on good teaching. That is not surprising given that its origins can be traced back to 1824 and the founding of the Mechanics Institute, only the third in the country, to provide vocational and educational training to working people. The higher education sector in general has a growing and very beneficial relationship with industry in the field of research and development, and FE colleges have well established links with business as providers of vocational and workplace training, but those ties could be developed far more in the field of teaching.
	The title of this debate refers to the benefits to society of policies to support teaching excellence. It is surely an essential feature of a civilised society that we hand on to the next generation as much as we can of the knowledge and expertise that we have gathered during our time on this planet. How well we teach determines how well we fulfil that obligation.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, for initiating this debate. I have a very clear memory of her as an absolutely exemplary Secretary of State. I also thank my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley for reminding me why the six years for which I worked alongside her were probably the most fulfilling of my life.
	If, as I certainly see it, the future sometimes looks like a war, this most recent generation of teachers seems to me pretty well the only infantry that we have available to us. They are a generation of well trained and confident teachers, comfortable with the implications of living in a digital society, but also keenly aware of the huge new challenges that that is likely to bring. It is they, and the children who they teach, who for me represent the most promising foundation on which we can build a sustainable society in this early part of the 21st century.
	The war to which I refer is a war between what I feel to be our sometimes failed present-by which I mean the increasing levels of inequality to which the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, referred-and the possibility of an altogether more imaginative future. The crucial factor in achieving a brighter future is a successful and confident educational system driven by a generation of outstanding teachers. The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, touched on this, but here is another testimonial from our former Poet Laureate, Sir Andrew Motion, from an article in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago. He said:
	"I was taught English by Peter Way (Mr Way to me), and it was as though he walked into my head and turned all the lights on ... He didn't know he was doing this, but he gave me my life".
	Mr Way walked into his head and turned all the lights on. Anyone in your Lordships' House who has experienced anything like the impact of a brilliant teacher can, I am certain, easily identify with that. In fact, all the interviews in that article came to exactly the same conclusion: teachers really matter.
	It is the teachers, not just the technology, who account for the crucial difference between raising the bar and it remaining in exactly the same, depressing place that it has always been. To be strictly accurate, it is the skilled teacher, adept at handling the best technology, who has become society's single greatest asset. Teachers such as those will come to matter more than ever in an advanced digital society. In essence, that means putting learning-that is to say, the acquisition of understanding-right back where it belongs, at the very centre of all our concerns.
	If learning finds itself at the heart of the new digital world, it follows that the type of teachers that I describe are its lifeblood. It does not take a lot of thought to acknowledge that, in reality, teachers are the key to all of our futures. In a world increasingly dominated by Google, Apple, Facebook, and so on, it pays to constantly remind ourselves that no education system in the world can ever be better than the quality of its average teacher. Every piece of social research that I have read in the past dozen years-and I have read a lot-affirms and reaffirms that fact, so I do not think that the importance of good teaching will change one bit.
	However, our definition of what makes a good teacher is likely to change quite a lot. Of course, such attributes as leadership, knowledge and the ability to inspire and arouse curiosity will always be fundamental. Teachers will still need to be coaches, colleagues and friends but, in addition, the daily substance of their professional skill base will alter, if for no other reason than to reflect the rapidly changing expectations of their students-all of which has significant implications for classroom and school management.
	The model of 30 children in neat rows facing a single teacher is, or ought rapidly to become, an anachronism in an era of touch-screen smart phones, tablet computers and whiteboard technology. In a world of Skype, webcams and video conferencing, why should English children in English schools not be helped to learn French by French children in French schools, or physics by a Nobel prize-winner? I have witnessed both situations in primary schools in this country. Why should teachers still be responsible for supervising their students' lunch hour or making sure PCs work, when armies of volunteers and specialists could so easily support them in exactly these areas?
	In conclusion, as I said, no education system can be better than the teachers it employs and the constantly improving standards that it demands of them. Teacher training in a digital age must be viewed as an entirely non-negotiable and continuing process. The commitment of Governments, businesses and individual heads to the best quality of training, along with regular-preferably annual-time out for professional development, must be absolute. There is no magic in any of this. The reality is that a world-class education system can, over time, deliver a world-class health service, whereas the reverse can never be possible. The successful nations of the 21st century will be those that recognise that fact and act on it.

Lord Bew: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, for securing this debate. I immediately declare an interest as a practising university teacher who intends to be, with luck, at 5 pm today at Queen's University, Belfast, taking a Masters seminar.
	I reassure your Lordships' House that teaching in our universities has, on the whole, changed for the better in the past 10 to 15 years. There is a much higher level of assessment nationally through the QAA. Every lecture course and set of tutorials is assessed on a regular basis. The fecklessness which may occasionally have been encountered by some Members of your Lordships' House in their university careers a generation ago has gone. Whether we have any more truly magical teaching, in the sense that has been described, I am not sure. I am saying simply that we have a more regular and systematic-and more assessed-kind of teaching in our universities.
	For that reason it is important to maintain the somewhat romantic link between teaching and research in the majority of British universities. It is frequently said on these Benches that we have too many colleges awarding PhDs. That is probably true. At the same time, for the best and most lively teaching our students should be taught by people who are involved in research. Only then can the full subtleties of a subject be conveyed, and only then can it be brought fully to life. Even the skills of exposition involved for the teacher are greater in these circumstances.
	I cannot leave the subject without talking about the elephant in the room-that is, grade inflation. I take this opportunity to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to events in the Republic of Ireland in the past few days in this respect. They are so very instructive. As a result of criticisms over several months by the American multinationals in Ireland-such as Google Ireland, Intel, and so on, which play such a vital role in the Irish economy-of the quality of what was emerging from the Irish educational system, which was previously considered to be one of the strongest in Europe, the Irish state has been forced into a critical re-examination. For example, last week a study from Trinity College, Dublin, which pointed out that the number of first-class degrees awarded by Irish universities had risen from 7 per cent in 1994 to 17 per cent today, attracted a lot of critical comment.
	The interesting point is the attitude of the Minister. Ministers of Education tend also to be spokesmen for the educational system, stressing how well things are going. I absolutely exempt from this the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. Irish Ministers of Education are no exception. On this occasion, Mr Batt O'Keeffe, the Minister of Education, because of the importance of the American companies and their criticism, has, in effect, said, "We have a problem. We have a major difficulty in our society with grade inflation and it is having significant-possibly negative-consequences for the survival of the national economy". This is a change that has taken place within a few days, and it is only explicable because of the depth of Ireland's financial crisis.
	However, I have to tell noble Lords, as somebody who has examined in universities in both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, that the two systems are very close. They are the two European systems that are closest to each other in their ethos, practices and modes of behaviour. Staff often move between one and the other. It is extremely unlikely that the Republic of Ireland is on a totally different planet from the United Kingdom. So, before we hit the rocks-which has, to some degree, happened in Dublin-it is important that we take stock.
	The great expansion in our higher education system in recent years and decades has been overwhelmingly a good thing. That is, of course, true, but we need now to take stock and look at the adjustments that are now required on account of the new and slightly difficult realities.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, not only on what she said but on carefully choosing the words in her Motion. I cannot think of anyone in the House who would disagree with the thrust of what she is trying to do and what she has said.
	I will briefly pay tribute to the Open University. In 1971 I enrolled as a student; in the vernacular, I was a B student. The first-year enrolment were A students, the second year were B students, and so on. I had four or five years of study. The point is not that it changed my life. Many people became students at the Open University to top up their education in the form of degrees of one kind or another. Possession of an Open University degree was, perhaps, an aid and a tool to getting a better job. That was not my situation. Jumping from then to now, it is a great pleasure for me to remember that I was in this Chamber when Jennie Lee, Ted Short and Walter Perry were Members. All three were giants in the establishment of the Open University.
	I took my degree and, when I qualified in 1976, the BBC man interviewed me. He said, "Ted, how did you study?". I said, "On the Victoria line". I used to travel from Enfield to Buckingham Palace Road, where I worked. I would get on the train at Enfield Town, change at Seven Sisters, get to Victoria and walk. It took me an hour. Many of my companions would doze, read the paper or gossip. I got out my lesson outlines and, by the end of the week, I had my weekend's work prepared.
	The work of the Open University is now recognised worldwide. The statistics are enormous. The great thing that I remember is the quality of the teaching. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I remember attending tutorials in Enfield and there being 82 year-old ladies in the same class as I was. There were people who had been educated better than I had at that stage. We were all there. The great thing that we were imbued with was wonder at having been given a second chance. The Open University is recognised, in the vernacular, as the university of the second chance.
	I left school at 14. I was head boy of my elementary school, as they were called then, but, having passed my 11-plus, I failed to go further because my dad was on the dole for 10 years. I passed my exam and went home with my piece of paper and said, "Mam, I've passed the exam". Dad laughed and she cried because they knew our family circumstances. I was the eldest of five children. There were seven of us in 1937 living on 37 shillings a week. Each child was given an allowance of two shillings and we could not afford to go.
	All the time from then on I knew that I had a degree in me. I knew that it was there. I studied under the National Council of Labour Colleges, under the Co-operative Union and under the WEA and I became qualified. I knew something. When I was able to absorb the teaching and listen, I knew that I had reached the zenith of my ambition in education. The tutor-marked assignments, the computer-marked assignments, the tutorials and the summer schools were all marvellous to me.
	When you are older and you get a second chance, you are not only grateful but you are better able to appreciate, enjoy and pass on the enthusiasm. What I got from my Open University time was not necessarily professional opportunity but gratitude to the Open University. I make no political point about this because we know that there have been ups and downs, but throughout the country there are many people for whom the Open University has been a godsend.
	The Open University is the largest university in the UK, teaching 35 per cent of all part-time undergraduates. There are over 175,000 students registered in the UK this year and over 2 million students have registered since 1971. With my eye on the clock, I would like not only to congratulate the noble Baroness but also to appreciate that the Open University has been a marvellous tool for so many people and I am proud to say that I was one of them.

Lord Elton: To the noble Lord's congratulations I add my thanks for this important occasion. Throughout, I shall refer to teachers as "he". This is not prejudice; it is to save time, as it is quicker.
	A teacher is not a blank template on to which skills and aptitudes are later printed by training. A teacher is a human being with a whole character already formed before he is trained. This character will speak as loud, often louder, than anything delivered by his lesson plans. The same goes for all the staff. Their attitudes, prejudices, reactions, tones of voice, body language and morality speak volumes every day. This unplanned process makes a crucial contribution to the value system that a child works out as he is growing up through the school at the beginning of his life. It is at least as important as, and in some respects even more important than, all the material in all their lessons put together. It is, after all, forming the personalities of the whole of the next generation. The selection of those who are to train as teachers is therefore of prime importance.
	It is essential that DCSF does not, either by policy directive or financial quotas, so pressure colleges and departments of education to keep their numbers up that they are made to accept candidates whose personalities are unsuited to their profession. This has happened in the past. The way to enlarge and strengthen the teaching profession is not to lower the entry standards but to raise its status and rewards so that, as in Finland, the most suitable people are attracted in large numbers. The best of those can then be selected.
	Schools prepare children to live as adults in the world outside academia. We ought to recognise the enormous value to a teacher, and therefore to pupils, of having lived and worked in that world so that he knows what he is preparing them for. Not long ago, a good honours degree, backed by a bit of that experience, enabled anyone to embark directly on a probationary year. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, referred to some of those people as inspirational but unqualified. I do not suggest that we should resume the practice, but we need to recognise the years spent at work in that world generously in the pay scales of those who return to work in our schools. We need them very badly.
	The quality of training given to teachers can vary dramatically. Sadly, one area in the past was-it may become so in the future and, for all I know, it may be now-deficient. Good classroom behaviour management is essential to the effectiveness not only of individual lessons but of a school as a whole. This cannot be taught as a cross-curricular subject, which usually means that the subject is not taught at all. It must be a distinct part of a training course in its own right and taught by people with recent and regularly refreshed personal experience of applying it in practice. Lecturers greatly increase their value by interspersing their years in college with years in schools.
	When I told my father that I intended, at the age of 32, suddenly to become a teacher, he gave me a piece of advice. He said, "You cannot teach anyone you do not like". I regarded every unlikeable child as a personal challenge to me to bend my character. Indeed, you cannot. You can train, drill or instruct them but, if teaching does mean education, you cannot teach them.
	Real teaching is an act of love. "Love" is a word with too many meanings for a debate like this, so let us substitute "care". Working for a couple of years in a comprehensive school in a slum-clearance estate in the Midlands, I saw at first hand what a dramatic effect it can have. Children are not so universally loved by their parents as we like to think. Deprivation of love of this sort and the neglect and lack of supervision that go with it lead a child to seek security outside the home. In places such as that, a good teacher can easily find himself or-I must add here-herself the first adult whom a child has ever encountered who really cares about what happens to him or her. I have seen it happen. This gives the teacher a tremendous opportunity and a tremendous responsibility. If he cannot find security either at home or in school, the child will look for and find it on the street. This is fact. Loveless homes are the breeding ground of gang culture. Much of our society is sick from a lack of love.
	The calling to be a teacher is a very high calling indeed. It is a calling to supply the most important of all ingredients of a healthy society and a good life. In many parts of this country, it is in desperately short supply.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging and fascinating debate, from the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to the very topical speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, on introducing this subject and say that I agree with many of her sentiments, particularly those about Ofsted and the importance of leadership in schools. As she said, the quality of teaching is one of the most important factors affecting the attainment of students and their social mobility. I have been a teacher and I know that it is an exhausting job that carries enormous responsibility. It has been widely praised in this debate across all sides of the House.
	Nowhere is excellent teaching more important than in schools where the young students have less ability than adults to compensate in their own time for any shortcomings. I will therefore focus on the importance of excellent teaching for children of school age and below. I add "below school age" because, like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I believe that fully qualified teachers with specific training in the early years are vital to the provision of high quality early-years settings. I am one of those who believe that teachers who have not been trained in the early years should not be teaching very young children. That is because an understanding of how children's brains and temperaments develop is a very important requirement. Early years teachers are taught how to observe children meaningfully and interpret the significance of what they are seeing. They are then taught how best to respond to that so that children are helped to learn at the rate that is appropriate to them. If you try to drive a child too hard or too fast, and you miss out a vital stage in their development you will get problems later. High quality early-years provision is a most cost-effective investment, and I congratulate the Government on what they have done, but as always there is much more to do.
	On the same principle, it is also important that teachers who are going to teach children aged 14 to 19 in schools or colleges should have some appropriate training in the needs of that age group. In saying that, however, I do not agree with part of the briefing that we received from the Association of Colleges. I agree that teachers in colleges should have the same esteem, professional recognition and pay as teachers who do the same job in schools-we on these Benches have long campaigned for that-but I do not agree that it does not matter if they have had no training that is specific to the age group. You cannot teach a teenager, boiling over with hormones and struggling with who he is and how to communicate, in the same way as you can teach a fully mature adult who knows who he is, where he is going and how to communicate with the rest of the world. Teenagers communicate ad nauseam-on their mobile phones and laptops-but they do it differently from adults, and teachers need to understand that.
	As my noble friend Lady Garden indicated, 800,000 14 to 16 year-olds are now being taught for part of the week in colleges, and this number is likely to grow, so it is vital that those who teach them in colleges have training in child safeguarding and in identifying signs of abuse or distress and knowing what to do and who to turn to if they see them. They also need training in behaviour management. Managing a class of 14 year-olds, even those who are excited about getting out of what they see as the more restrictive school environment, is not as easy as managing a similar class of 22 year-olds.
	It is easy to assume that young people who have proved to be difficult in school because they have not been engaged by the curriculum will suddenly become little angels who are totally engaged in their work when they get into a college. While I accept that that does happen sometimes-indeed, this is part of the point of it-it does not always happen, and teachers need training in how to manage those situations.
	Do the Government have any plans to provide teachers who are taking their qualified teacher learning and skills qualification with the specific training that they need to teach teenagers? As things stand at the moment, they do not. This would improve the fluidity of the teaching profession and enable teachers to move between schools and colleges.
	Schools have changed a great deal since I was a pupil and then a teacher, and so has society. In a very large percentage of households, both parents are working, which makes it difficult for parents to spend time in the school. Working patterns have changed so that many parents cannot even get to parents' evenings because they are working. That is why I campaigned, along with the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, for wider rights for parents to ask for flexible working. Unfortunately, the Government said no. For that and other reasons, many parents find it difficult to engage with the school and to help their children with their learning.
	Yesterday morning, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, and I both spoke at the launch of a report on the involvement of parents in schools following research by Parentline Plus and the Teacher Support Network. So far in the debate, only the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has mentioned parents' involvement. It was clear from that research that it is very important to a child's learning that teachers and parents communicate well. The report identified a number of barriers to that, and the panel of speakers identified others, such as lack of cultural sensitivity. The role of lack of communication with parents in the exclusion of children from school was also highlighted.
	One of the recommendations that came out of the report was the provision at every school of a parents' support worker. I agree. Indeed, the same recommendation appeared in one of my party's policy papers a couple of years ago. These workers can provide a very effective way of identifying the problems at home that get in the way of a child's learning and of helping to find ways of addressing them. They can remove the barriers between the parents and the school and provide a conduit to other services that might help. There is a wide range of possibilities. Will the Government ensure that every school has the resources to employ such a person if they feel they need one?
	Primary head teachers whom I met later in the day confirmed the value in their schools of the charity Place2Be, which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned. Place2Be provides counselling to children and parents-someone to talk to and to help the child sort out his problems so that he is ready for learning. They made it clear that the role of these therapists in training the teachers to identify problems and signpost the children to help was also crucial. All these things are the signs of a good teacher. I echo the noble Earl's comments on all this.
	Another recommendation of the report that I saw in the morning was that teachers should have training in how to interact with parents, especially those who perceive barriers. This can be done during initial teacher training or in CPD for serving teachers. I know there are many demands on teacher training and many things that should be included, but few things can be so profitable for the child in the long run than good relations, support and understanding between the family and the school.
	At the end of the day, we should try to see things from the child's point of view and put him first. Avoiding the situation in which the school and parents are at loggerheads is one of the marks of an excellent teacher and an excellent school. I do not suggest that the Government try to tell them how to do it in a one-size-fits-all way, but I do suggest that the importance of home-school communications is emphasised, trained for, monitored, supported and evaluated as a key criterion of a good teacher and a good school.
	I mentioned ITT, so I will also pass on something else that the primary heads told us. They felt that a nine-month course is not enough for initial teacher training and that young teachers come into the job ill equipped. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, mentioned many of the things that young teachers need to know about these days. They suggested that the course should be two years instead of one, with the second part spent in a school, rather like the current induction year but with ongoing work with their college or university.
	Both heads take student teachers in their schools but were concerned about the quality of the role models the students get. They felt that students should be assigned only to mentor teachers who are regarded as good or excellent, not just satisfactory. They also felt that if every school that had good or excellent teachers was obliged to take some student teachers, it would spread the load and the students would get the benefit of really good teacher role models.
	We try to cram so much into ITT these days, such as SEN and safeguarding, and I have asked for even more this morning. Will the Minister look seriously at the suggestion made by these head teachers, who after all are at the chalk face? I should like the idea to be explored. It would not necessarily have to cost more, and the young teachers would earn during the second year. The head teachers had a good point about spreading the load.
	I was struck recently by a comment by Clive James, who said that his only talent was to be able to turn a phrase until it catches the light: a lovely phrase in itself. I think that an excellent teacher is someone who can turn a child's head until it catches the light.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, we are enormously grateful to my noble friend Lady Shephard for introducing this most timely and crucial debate, and I congratulate all noble Lords on their excellent contributions today. My noble friend, as always, put forward in her measured and informed way the real problems that face both parents and teachers after 13 years of a Labour Government. As a former Secretary of State for Education, her knowledge and experience so clearly highlighted the challenges that the Government have failed to address.
	We want to build a strong society in which real opportunity is available to everyone, where there are no restrictions to ambition and there is an education system that offers both the vehicle and the tools to economical and social mobility and empowers our citizens to be guardians of society. Is the Minister aware that the British Chambers of Commerce have branded the education failure a national scandal? In a survey, this organisation discovered that 61 per cent of small businesses thought that the education system was failing to produce individuals with skills adequate for work. Will the Minister outline more fully what changes the Government have made to address this problem?
	We all accept that the global market demands that we have a skilled and knowledge-based population, so it is critical that excellence is an expectation that is met in the early years of our children and that those who are in charge of delivering that are also well equipped and supported.
	The Government have made much in recent days about wanting to offer parents more choice and more power over their children's education. But perhaps the Minister would like to answer why, as soon as they got into power in 1997, the Government got rid of the very institutions that had given parents and schools alike the choices and empowerment to teach free from the interference of constant centralised government instruction. Terry Leahy, CEO of Tesco, has said that standards are woefully low and that one of the reasons for this may be that there are too many agencies and bodies issuing reams of instructions to teachers who then get distracted from the task at hand-teaching children.
	As my noble friends Lord Norton of Louth and Lady Perry of Southwark have said so eloquently, this Government have introduced an overcentralised, bureaucratic system with a continual stream of initiatives, regulations and diktats, but without proper evaluation or monitoring systems to measure the true impacts of the many programmes and pieces of legislation that have been rushed through and imposed on educational institutions. If we are to have excellence, we must ensure that we attract the best people into education in order to deliver it.
	We must ensure that teachers and lecturers already in post are supported in accessing professional development and training. We must also ensure that they are able to respond to the needs of the populations they teach and to the demands of the local, national and international challenges. We know that the quality of individual teachers is the most important determinant in a child or young person's educational progress. In her speech, my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton vividly showed evidence of how good teachers influenced her. My noble friend Lord Elton touched on the importance of attitude as well as competency in teaching, which is such a common-sense approach.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and other noble Lords have said that it is imperative that we raise the prestige, esteem and professionalism of teaching in our country. Countries such as Finland and Singapore have a single factor in common: namely, that teaching is one of the most prestigious courses for graduates. Under this Government, however, teaching has become devalued. Will the Minister inform the House why 100,000 teachers have left the profession since 1997?
	It is crucial that if we are to attract and retain the best teachers, we should also give head teachers greater flexibility over pay and conditions, and greater freedom to attract specialists in areas such as reading, maths and science in order that our schools send out well informed, well rounded young people. We must ensure that the qualifications they acquire are robust and rigorous. It cannot be acceptable that, since 1998, more than 3 million 11 year-olds have not reached the Government's basic level in reading, writing and maths or that 4 million children have failed to get five GCSEs, including maths and English, at grade C or better. Nor can it be acceptable that more than 20,000 students each year do not get a single GCSE, even at grade G.
	The Government have refused state schools the opportunity to offer students the more challenging exams that independent schools and academies can offer. Excellence in education should not be restricted only to those who want to follow academic paths. It must also include vocational pathways, which is why we as a party will build a generation of technical schools to teach high-quality vocational courses. While the Government have increased the numbers of those achieving NVQ level 2, it is their failure to support NVQ level 3 that has hindered many from making that necessary step to improving their prospects to mobilise actively in the workplace.
	With a million young people not in education, employment or training, it is crucial, through the important role played by our FE colleges, that they can deliver the most flexible and accessible route to reach those hard-to-reach groups and those adult learners wishing to reskill or retrain. FE colleges often lie at the heart of the community, which is why we want to see funding for Train to Gain redirected to community learning and to a dedicated NEET fund.
	Each citizen must matter, so why has there been a sharp decline in the enrolments in FE colleges? I expect the answers lie in the Government's review by Sir Andrew Foster. He revealed shocking levels of bureaucracy and regulation. Yet what did this Government do? They abolished the Learning and Skills Council and are replacing it with not one but three other bodies. Add those new bodies to the existing 17 that colleges already have to work with and it is hardly surprising that FE colleges are being stifled. When the Conservatives freed up this sector, we saw innovation and the numbers enrolling rise: we have witnessed the opposite under Labour. Excellence, innovation and creative thinking in colleges will return when they are free of the stranglehold of this Government. The Conservatives will remove unnecessary bureaucracy from FE colleges and open up the supply of training with a streamlined funding model.
	Last year, many students were left in great uncertainty as to whether they would have a place at their chosen university-or at any university. Places are set to be even fewer this year. Universities face many difficult choices; yet we need a better educated, knowledge-based workforce. Universities have raised concerns about their confidence in the qualifications being taken by students. With record numbers of students gaining top grades, employers and universities rightly question the rigour of those qualifications, particularly when universities are having to in many cases put into place remedial classes to ensure that acceptable levels in literacy and grammar skills are reached.
	We all want those who wish to go to university to be given the opportunity, but will the Government now recognise their mistake in placing arbitrary percentages that have added to the pressures of universities to comply? We have a world-class higher education system. We have led the way in large areas of research, innovation and entrepreneurialism. But many of us knew that when higher education was taken into the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the importance linked to the value and necessity of this sector would be lost as it became a tiny cog in a big machine under the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson.
	For excellence in education at every level and sector, the standards of those teaching at the front of the class have to be excellent. It is a virtuous circle. Universities play a key role in the training of school teachers. We as a party will wish to see graduates with at least a 2:2 classification in order to qualify for state-funded training. We believe that our brightest students should be encouraged to enter teaching. In our country, social and economic mobility during the past 13 years has declined and it really is not good enough. Global markets and ever changing technologies demand that we raise our standards. This debate has raised a whole range of questions for the Minister and I very much look forward to her response.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, for securing this debate. I enjoyed very much her opening remarks. I agree with a lot of what she said, but I found her underlying analysis to be rather less optimistic than perhaps I would have hoped. She challenged me to respond on the question of funding for higher education, as did the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Garden. We must be clear: under this Government, we have seen record investment in higher education with 25 per cent more funding than in 1997 in real terms. There has been a decade of record public investment in higher education. This Government will spend around £15 billion on universities, teaching, research and supporting students. As we know, these are very difficult times and higher education must diversify and take its share of the cuts in the way that all sectors of society are and will.
	We have made it clear that universities have to do their fair share of belt tightening, but no more. We are asking for savings of less than 5 per cent and we expect universities to do that in a way that minimises the impact on students, teaching and research activities. Total university income is about £23 billion per year. Our investment has created the capacity to deal with those harder times. I was incredibly interested to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I am sure he is right that when we look at how our higher education fits with partners in the rest of the world it is always right to take stock on how we are doing.
	I am very pressed for time and I shall do my best to pick up on all points made by noble Lords. I strongly agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about reducing the burden on higher education. When I was in the DES, it was something I was keen on and I know that BIS is committed to continuing that work. Also, I was incredibly moved by the contribution of my noble friend Lord Graham about his education on the Victoria Line. As someone who has spent a great deal of time on that line, I was delighted to hear his tribute to the Open University.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: It was a moving experience.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: Exactly. I want to associate myself strongly with his remarks.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, challenged me in one particular area on which I want to focus, and that is the question of continuing professional development. The noble Baroness asked me about the rollout of the masters in teaching and learning. She was right to ask me about this because our aspiration is to see teaching as a masters profession and will be one of the most significant steps on the journey to raise the status and effectiveness of our teachers and to promote excellence in teaching. This is a key new qualification and picks up on the analysis of my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley. Her thoughtful four-point plan emphasised trusting the evidence of what works in teaching, making sure that the research is of good quality, and ensuring that teachers have the time and the skills to reflect on their approach. The masters in teaching and learning is all about creating these conditions. My noble friend made several salient points, including that of ensuring that it is easy for teachers to access analyses of what works. I found her idea of a NICE for teaching and learning both interesting and thought-provoking.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about the need to extend access for teachers to training and contact with the training provider into a second year. Again, that is absolutely what we want to look at. The masters in teaching and learning is designed to begin in the summer term of the NQT year, which may pick up on some of her concerns. This is an extremely important issue and is why we have the masters, initial teacher training and the NQT year. However, I may need to write to the noble Baroness in more detail because I know that she is interested in how it is going to work.
	My noble friend Lady Massey asked whether I agree with her that we have the best generation of teachers ever. I probably will agree because although I am the daughter of two teachers and I would not wish to be critical of the teaching of my parents' generation, we now have an absolutely tremendous profession. Many noble Lords have spoken of the dedication of teachers, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that teaching is an "act of love". I agree absolutely with him. We could well be at the beginning of a golden age of teaching, but this Government are not complacent. We have come far but we have much further to go.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, talked about transferability between further education and schools, an issue that she was right to highlight and I will write to her about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, was concerned about the fact that Ofsted is apparently not inspecting quality. That is not the picture that I see. Ofsted is telling us that the number of schools where teaching and learning is good or outstanding has risen on previous years. How could it say that without knowing? Secondary school teaching can be outstanding even in the most challenging schools, while in the primary sector the best teaching is now based on stimulating engagement with pupils and teachers who are secure in the knowledge that they need to promote excellence.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady Walmsley, all talked about the importance of the early years and early intervention. We face challenges in making sure that we look after children with mental health problems by tackling them early through investing in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. The noble Earl also talked about the role of the Place2Be service. It is a fantastic charity and I echo the tributes made in the Chamber for its work. Sure Start is important because three and four year-olds now have access to high quality, state-promoted excellent childcare, but we have to go further. That is why we extending this to two year-olds in more deprived areas.
	We all know that the best thing a Government can do, if they are dedicated to raising standards in schools, is to invest in excellent teachers. That is a given and we have all understood that today. It means making sure that teachers feel part of a profession with real status and programmes of training and continuous career development that allow teaching to attract and retain the very best. This has been our policy over the past 13 years. Our schools have changed beyond recognition, and this has been achieved by taking action. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, said that it is important. Since 1997, total funding per pupil has more than doubled, and I say that because this is also about numbers. Since that year, every single school has benefited from increasing capital investment. There are around 4,000 new, rebuilt or significantly refurbished schools. If you are a teacher, you do not want to teach in a school with a leaking roof and without proper facilities. It is important for status and self-esteem. Remaining with numbers, the average salary for primary and secondary school teachers has increased by more than £11,000 over the 13 years.
	I have to correct the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. We now have over 40,000 more teachers in schools than in 1997, backed up by over 200,000 support staff. This gives teaching staff the time to do what they should be doing, which is teaching and reflecting on their practice. The number of schools not achieving the National Challenge benchmark of 30 per cent of pupils getting five good GCSEs, including English and maths, has fallen by around 85 per cent, from more than half in 1997 to less than one in 13 today. That is a huge improvement and the figure is on track to reduce to zero by 2011-provided that we have another Labour Government. That is not something we should just assume, and this will not happen without another Labour Government.
	We have taken teaching from being a profession that I think we recognise was in crisis with real problems of recruitment and retention, resulting in vacancies in schools, to becoming the top destination for university leavers. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, that the challenges of recruitment and retention are becoming things of the past. We are introducing a licence to practise for teachers in the Children, Schools and Families Bill that is coming to this House for debate next week, and we are bringing in measures to free up the curriculum further. As my noble friend Lord Parekh suggested, this is an important direction of travel which we are committed to promoting further. This will give the teaching profession the status it deserves, on a par with the legal or medical professions, and will provide an incentive for schools and local authorities to further develop professional skills to the highest level through continuous professional development.
	Excellent teachers mean better educated children and young people with the skills and knowledge they need to move on to the next stage of their lives, whether that is directly into employment or by taking up one or more of the new apprenticeships touched on by my noble friend Lady Wall, or by moving on to further and higher education. This excellence in teaching and learning has resulted in a generation of young people with the best academic and vocational results ever. I shall say that again: the best academic and vocational results ever. Let us not talk down our young people in this country.
	It is equally important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, that teaching quality in our institutions of further and higher education is as good as in our schools. Over the past decade we have transformed the further education workforce. Further education teachers must be professionally registered and all teaching staff working in the public sector are now required to undertake continuing professional development. That is a really important step. We are introducing the National Teaching and Learning Change Programme to promote excellence and raise standards, and we have created new national skills academies to build links between education and industry. As my noble friend Lady Wall suggested, more than ever our skills system needs to be driven by the needs of employers, but it must also be closely focused on the aptitudes and aspirations of learners. Excellent teaching in further education colleges is essential if we are to create a workforce able to take up new jobs in new areas of economic growth, such as low carbon technologies, or in those areas driven by broader demographic changes, such as care, hospitality and the leisure sectors.
	I began my contribution by referring to higher education. This country has for many years been at the forefront of the technological advances of the past two centuries. The UK produces 9 per cent of the world's scientific papers and has a citation share of 12 per cent, second only to the United States of America. That is an impressive record of which we must be proud. The quality of the higher education provided by our universities stands comparison with the best in the world. My noble friend Lord Giddens referred to the importance of maintaining that level of excellence. This will entail a continuous process of reflection and adjustment, and a great deal of work is going on in the higher education sector to meet the challenges of ensuring that that quality remains high.
	The sector is currently consulting on a proposed revision of its quality assurance systems and is carrying out a thorough review of external examination arrangements to ensure that common standards across the sector can be maintained. In future-this is important-the Quality Assurance Agency will include students in audit teams, as well as continuing to invite students to contribute to the evidence that authors see. According to the annual National Student Survey, as a noble Lord has already said, more than 80 per cent of students say that they are satisfied with their teaching and learning experience. I appreciate the challenge. We do not want to see students as consumers-we have to recognise that education is more than a straight commercial purchase-but there is much more depth to that debate.
	There has been record investment in higher education, as I have said. I am sorry if it is offensive to talk about having high aspirations, but it is absolutely right that we should aspire to 50 per cent of our young people going into higher education. Our aim is for three-quarters of people to participate in higher education or complete an advanced apprenticeship or equivalent technician-level course by the age of 30. That is being ambitious for our country and our young people, and that is why we have invested so heavily in building up foundation degrees linked to actual demand in the employment market to their current level of around 100,000. Universities are commercialising more of their knowledge and building ever closer links with industry, which is a very positive thing. Over the past decade, annual university earnings from collaboration with business have risen to £2.8 billion, and the £23 billion in public and private income that the universities received in 2008 has been transformed into £60 billion in jobs, exports, innovation and added value.
	I have a minute before I stop. My noble friend Lord Puttnam referred to a better, fairer, imagined future. He quoted Sir Andrew Motion talking about a Mr Way, who walked into his head, switched on a light and gave him his life. That is a wonderful message on which to sit down because I have had some wonderful teachers who have done the same for me. This has been a tremendous debate and I am deeply honoured to have been able to take part.

Baroness Shephard of Northwold: My Lords, there is no time left. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in a debate which truly has been inspiring. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
	Motion withdrawn.

International Women's Day
	 — 
	Debate

Moved By Baroness Miller of Hendon
	To call attention to the International Women's Day global celebration of the economic, political and social achievements of women; and to move for Papers.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it is a great privilege to introduce this debate on a subject on which much of my political work has been based, and I am grateful to my party for giving me one of its valuable time slots for the debate. However, I confess that it is with some trepidation that I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, who, with considerable persuasiveness, opened a similar debate coinciding with International Women's Day in both 2008 and 2009-and a few times before that as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has been the chairman of the Women's National Commission for almost the past three years and has a distinguished career in furthering women's interests, both nationally and internationally. She and I entered your Lordships' House in the same intake in 1993 on the nomination of the then Prime Minister, John Major. The list included four men and four women-and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will agree that it was a vintage year. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is not in her place today to give us the benefit of her views.
	I must declare some interests. First, I was one of the early members of the 300 Group, the aim of which was to get 300 women of all parties into the House of Commons and, indeed, many of our supporters have now found their way into the other place and your Lordships' House on all sides. However, I regret to say that we failed to achieve our numerical objective, despite the Labour Party's introduction of all-women short lists which resulted in a substantial increase in the number of women MPs in 1997. My own party is considering imposing a similar requirement.
	The problem is not a dearth of suitably qualified women candidates; it is often the attitude of the local selection committees. I well remember my first interview as a potential candidate. The chairman's opening words to me were, "Before you sit down, Mrs Miller, can you tell us whether your husband is aware that you are here tonight?". Being naïve, as I was in those days, I did not realise that I was already sunk without a trace before I had begun and I started to answer him politely. It was only after a moment or two that I realised I should have replied, "No, he thinks I am out at a disco with the milkman". I and most women candidates can tell similar stories of sexist questions raised by selection committees-often, I regret to say, by women members, whose attitude seems to be that a woman's only place is in the kitchen.
	It is regrettable that in the 24 Parliaments from 1918, out of a total of some 16,000 seats, only 613 women have been elected. In Rwanda, 56 per cent of Members of its Parliament are women; and the constitution of Bangladesh, a Muslim country, requires a minimum number of seats to be reserved for women, who are, nevertheless, also able to stand for the unrestricted seats.
	The second interest I declare is as a founder and co-chairman of the Women into Public Life campaign, in which the 300 Group, together with the Fawcett Society, sought for more women to receive more public appointments. This has achieved some success and progress continues to be made, but not enough yet to achieve the parity that both equality and recognition of the talents of over half the population deserve.
	In the other place, there are 19 Select Committees, each connected to a specific government department. They are intended to be powerful instruments of oversight. Of the 238 committee members, only 18.5 per cent are women-which is less than the already low proportion of women Members of the other House-and only two of the chairmen are women. The Monetary Policy Committee has had four women members compared with 22 men, and the Appraisal Committee of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence-NICE, as it is known-has had four women out of 16 members. In the judiciary, there is only one woman member of the new Supreme Court; there is no longer a woman head of a division of the High Court; and the small number of women High Court judges, circuit judges and recorders shows that there is unfulfilled scope for more women judges. The number of women civil servants is 53 per cent, which is indeed a due proportion of the population, while the proportion of women who have reached the grade of senior civil servant is 33 per cent, which is a great step forward towards the Government's commendable target of 39 per cent within the next three years.
	To their credit, the Government, with full cross-party support, have in some areas consistently supported efforts to improve the status and rights of women. However, it must be noted with some regret that the number of women appointed by the Government to boards of public bodies has fallen by some 5 per cent in the past five years. If I had to mark the Government on achieving equality in public service appointments, I would say, "Doing fairly well but much more effort is required".
	I turn from history to the concept of International Women's Day, and in particular to this year's celebration of that date. It comes under the umbrella of the United Nations. It is intended, in the high-sounding words of that body, to,
	"look back to a tradition that represents at least nine decades of struggle for equality, justice, peace and development".
	Organisations, women's groups and even Governments around the world choose an annual theme that reflects global and local gender issues. This year's theme, if local and national organisations choose to adopt it, is "equal rights and opportunities and progress for all".
	Checking the appropriate websites, I have been able to find only 10 events scheduled for the United Kingdom, three events in the USA, three events in Canada and eight in Australia. I have not extended my search further because I am sure that my point has been made: as well-meaning as the concept of International Women's Day is, and as worthy as its objectives undoubtedly are, the associated activities are too disparate, too diffuse, sometimes too obscure, too low-key, too transient and, above all, too unco-ordinated to achieve any realistic impact, especially when an event may not get more than a few lines in the local paper and, at the very best, a soundbite lasting just a few seconds on the early evening TV news. This is an inadequate reward for all the efforts that the organisers put into their individual events.
	If I have any call to make in this debate, it will be on the Government, of any complexion, to take a greater lead in arousing interest, not only on International Women's Day but on every day in the objectives that they should be covering. I will return to this later.
	I want to draw attention to the numerous and serious issues that currently affect women around the world, even in so-called enlightened countries. While not in any order of significance, some of the issues, many of which overlap, are the inequality of rights and opportunities; the denial in some places of education to girls; the under-representation of women in legislatures and Governments around the world, including the European Parliament; violence against women and girls, especially in the home, and sexual violence; human trafficking; forced marriage; so-called "honour killings"-I am pleased to note that, with the help of recent legislation, the immigration service is now making some attempt to inhibit the forced marriage practised by some communities in this country-and female genital mutilation, not only that which is practised in their remote home countries but that which is also illegally forced on girls in western countries.
	The "glass ceiling" affects commercial and industrial boardrooms. It is a matter of great regret that the gender pay gap exists around the world. Women are used as cheap labour, not only in many third world countries but in industrialised countries, including the United Kingdom. In Britain, although legislation exists to give rights for underpaid women to seek redress via an employment tribunal, it is rarely effective.
	I have used the word "regret". I also regret the fact that the Government themselves are guilty of fostering underpayment in the Treasury, where there is a difference of £10,000 per annum in top positions and £20,000 per annum at Ofsted. In fact the gender pay gap has widened in many other government departments, including the Foreign Office, Defra, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Borders and Immigration Agency, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Land Registry. I look to the Government, of whatever party, to remedy this injustice without delay and without all the specious excuses about "pay restraint".
	The UK Government have ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. However, there is still often a failure by the police and authorities to recognise the women as victims and not as criminals or illegal immigrants. As well as prosecuting the traffickers and the people who control the women, the prosecution of their clients would be a useful weapon. Of course, I realise that the so-called "oldest profession" is never going to be eliminated and that many women enter it with a degree of self-choice, but the coercion and the violence that often accompany it should be stamped out.
	In the same way, much still needs to be done to encourage police to treat women who complain of rape in a more sympathetic and less sceptical way. Here, though, I am encouraged by statements by the police authorities that they are trying to change the ethos of the detectives who deal with this particularly repulsive crime. We will need to wait and see if actions match the warm words. The fact is, however, that recorded rapes of females increased by 4,500 a year between 1999 and 2009, but there has not been a corresponding increase in convictions and in the past five years the average sentence has dropped by over nine months.
	The Home Office has revealed that repeat violence-I emphasise, repeat violence-accounts for 66 per cent of reported domestic violence. I welcome the experiment introduced by the Government to create specialised domestic violence courts, which fast-track cases to be heard by specially trained magistrates. Let us hope that this experiment proves to be a success and is rolled out throughout the country.
	I also look forward to the Government introducing the proposed new domestic violence protection orders. However, a new phenomenon has arisen in the timeless issue of domestic violence against women, and it is quite horrifying: violence by male youths-teenagers and just older than that-against girls and young women, often drink-fuelled and often after refusal of sexual favours, and sometimes to control whoever else the girl may be in contact with. Research by the NSPCC suggests that one in four girls, some as young as 13, have been hit by their boyfriends, and one in nine has been beaten up, hit by objects or strangled. This problem has escalated to such and extent that the Government have launched an advertising campaign to educate young men against this form of violence, and from next year lessons in gender equality and preventing violence in personal relationships will be included in the already overcrowded school curriculum.
	Commendably, the Government have invested in quality support services for women, including for victims of trafficking, of "honour"-based violence and of female genital mutilation. They have provided sexual assault referral centres and independent domestic advisers. This is an example to other Governments, but it is not necessarily the extent of what needs to be done.
	Today's debate is to call attention to International Women's Day. However, that important event, celebrated as it is to varying extents around the world, is, as I said in my opening remarks, just transient. It is merely a token fig leaf covering the multiple major problems for women of being economically, socially and politically disadvantaged and the physical and mental violence endured by women around the world.
	All the political parties of this country can be proud of the steps that it has been taking in combating the many issues that I have referred to, but I would like the United Kingdom to do more. Last Friday, "Newsnight" reported a suggestion that the United Nations should create a new agency dedicated to women's interests, in the same way as UNICEF works for children. I agree, even though I do not entirely relish the idea of a new expensive bureaucratic United Nations agency, but I seriously doubt if those members of the UN whose political and religious ethos actually consigns women to second-class status would support it. I would like the United Kingdom, whoever the Government are, to take the lead and remedy this situation.
	In concluding her speech on 6 March 2008, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that creating an equal society must be our goal. I agree with her. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking in this debate after the noble Baroness. As she said, she and I came into your Lordships' House on the same list many, many years ago. We have debated from the Front and Back Benches on both sides of the House, during which time she has championed the cause of women not only in politics but also in business and industry. Over those many years, she has been proved right. We have seen a growing body of evidence that diverse workforces are best placed to deal with the challenges of business and industry. We have also seen that gender equality is not a luxury; the economy really benefits from having a diverse workforce, in which the inclusion of women is paramount. Indeed, some economists now say that social capital is the true engine of our economy.
	I cannot remember a time when this has been more important. This is one of the deepest recessions that I have known and we need growth to work our way out of it. Women provide a source of significant growth in business numbers in the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom had the same level of female entrepreneurship as the United States, there would be approximately 600,000 extra women-owned businesses in this country. Just think what that would do for growth.
	This is why we need an Equality Bill and this is why the Government are right to pursue family-friendly policies. However, there is no magic formula. International comparisons are difficult. In Sweden, for example, despite its family-friendly policies, only 1.5 per cent of senior managers are women, compared with 11 per cent in America. Quotas may work in Norway, but I am not sure that they would work here. We have to work out our own effective gender equality policies and practices.
	Fortunately, to help us to do this we have some important research. Recently, the Government Equalities Office examined diversity on public and private boards of directors. They found that many of the obstacles faced by women are arguably similar to those faced by other underrepresented groups, such as people from ethnic minorities or disabled people. They identified the obstacles at three levels: individual, interpersonal and process.
	The research showed that, contrary to popular opinion, there are plenty of women able and willing to work in business and industry and to sit on boards. Stereotyping leads people to underestimate their competence, aspiration and merit. That is why we need to encourage the aspirations of women and why line managers must give others confidence through coaching and mentoring within the working environment-the kind of thing that the Chartered Management Institute does to support female managers.
	The research also found what we all suspect: members of underrepresented groups are excluded from the influential, informal networks that are crucial for career progression. This kind of culture is inhospitable to women, which is why the Women in Management Network is so important. Again, the research identified something that we all know: in many cases the recruitment process is unnecessarily opaque, with unclear selection criteria and practices that are open to bias. If we are to have diversity in this country, the appointment process has to be much improved.
	These findings seem to apply to women going into business and industry generally and not just to boards of directors. It also seems that these are as much failures in corporate governance as in process. If the voluntary code of corporate governance does not deal with this, it will encourage a move towards corporate governance by legislation. The Financial Reporting Council is currently consulting on changes to the UK corporate governance code to encourage more diversity by not restricting the talent pool. The consultation closes tomorrow, so perhaps the Leader's office could send a copy of this debate to the council as a contribution towards the consultation.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, one has only to look around this Chamber to see what can be achieved by women in their various fields, given the opportunity. However, I want to use this debate to remember all those women worldwide who have not had those opportunities.
	Education was a given for our generation. We all accept nowadays that education, and education of girls in particular, is linked to the economic growth and development of third-world countries; the millennium development goals illustrate this. However, in developing countries many women have their lives ruined by poor health. I have received good healthcare throughout my life and was able to continue my career and bring up my children, but my sisters in the third world have no such luck.
	Men between the ages of 15 and 44 face no single threat to their health and lives that compares to pregnancy and childbirth and its complications, yet millennium development goal 5, which calls for improvement in maternal health, has progressed the least. Women's empowerment and investment in girls' education are smart economics, but they will be no use unless women are able to bear children in greater safety.
	I declare an interest as a long-time officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. Last year we reflected on the work that Sarah Brown is doing with the White Ribbon Alliance to promote maternal health. We often hear that, because of the lack of simple obstetric care, a woman dies every minute-that is half a million women dying every year. We have to add to this figure the millions of women in developing countries with permanent disability and ill health following childbirth whose lives, and those of their families, are ruined every year. Reflecting on this carnage, I asked last year whether these women would not be better off dead and "Better off Dead?" became the title of the all-party group's report on maternal morbidity.
	Obstetric fistula and/or total prolapse caused by obstructed labour over days reduce usually very young women to stinking wrecks, who take little part in family life and work afterwards. They are sometimes driven out of the family home altogether. The luckier ones, maybe, are allowed to live in a hut in the yard with the animals. Some develop contractures and limb disabilities due to lying curled up in a cramped space. Female genital mutilation often contributes to this-the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has mentioned that and I must also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, who has campaigned so hard on the issue. Added to these conditions are untreated eclampsia, chronic anaemia and infections, unsafe abortion, haemorrhage and, of course, chronic mental health disorders. They are all mostly preventable and treatable conditions. This is maternal morbidity.
	Why does the world continue to let this happen? If men suffered in the same way, even the poorest countries would have done something about it by now. Lack of political will, few women in positions of influence and the low status of women mean that scant attention is paid to the problem. What is needed is the provision of simple, cheap drugs such as magnesium sulphate and Misoprostol, better trained health attendants, safe abortion and, above all, family planning to end the drudgery of large families. There is a huge unmet need for family planning; do not let anyone persuade you that there is not. Those countries that heard the message and acted on it are already getting close to the millennium development goals. Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Malaysia have done well but even Bangladesh, with all its problems, is bringing down its family size because of the good provision of family planning services.
	I could speak for a long time; sadly, I do not have that time. We in our fortunate lives must make much greater efforts to ensure that women the world over share our good fortune. My Lords, read our report and press for action.

Baroness Afshar: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for putting the subject on the agenda and the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for mentioning the women in the rest of the world. I would like to talk about women from the rest of the world who are among us but not treated equally. I declare an interest as the patron of Solace and Refugee Action York. Both work with refugees; I work particularly with women.
	In this country, we are extremely fortunate to have recognised the differing needs of women in detention. The landmark decision piloted by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, has allowed doorways to be opened for the differentiated treatment of women. Unfortunately, in the case of women detainees in detention centres, such rights are not recognised or respected. Many are detained without having committed or being guilty of anything, and without any criminal charges, while their destiny is being decided. The doors of their homes are broken open. They are dragged into prison-like conditions in detention centres, often accompanied by their children. Sometimes the children are on their own; according to Sir Al Aynsley-Green, then Children's Commissioner, 2,000 children were detained in 2008, the last year for which we have data. Families are split up. One mother in Yarl's Wood detention centre has been there for 11 months while her children-British citizens-are looked after by families.
	The facilities open to such women are appalling. They have been so bad that women went on hunger strike in February, 20 of them for three weeks. One of my colleagues contacted one of them; they were asking for fairer immigration hearings, for better access to bail for detainees and for the law to be put into practice to stop the forcible and degrading removal of women and families. Denise McNeil said of her conditions that there was no water in the tap and no flushing toilets. Because she was on suicide watch, her telephone conversations were being monitored. Her children are staying with families; one goes to school and the other does not. Verna Joseph, who is from St Lucia and was another striker, won her case with the Home Office. She cannot go back because of what happened to her; she had been kidnapped and raped. She has been in Yarl's Wood for six months and says that she is illegally detained. She cannot walk around without being observed and her letters are opened. A third hunger striker tried to hang herself. She complained that lies were being told and said that, if she did one session of cleaning, she earned £1. One carton of orange juice costs £1.20 and there is a charge of 10p a day for a mobile phone. Even basic survival is difficult.
	Matters are not helped by the new detained fast track-DFT. Human Rights Watch suggests that women with complex asylum claims, often based on rape and violence, are rushed through. It is estimated that 70 per cent of the women in Yarl's Wood are victims of violence. There are women such as Fatima, whose husband is powerful in his local area, who are subject to domestic violence. There are women such as Xiuxiu from China, who was trafficked into England. Once they are put on DFT, they are immediately taken to Yarl's Wood and interviewed. If refused-in 2008, 96 per cent of claims were-they are allowed two days for appeal and then the appeal is heard within 11 days. From start to finish, the process takes two weeks. That is simply not enough time for vulnerable women who are not accustomed to talk to strangers about terrible things that have happened to them to get themselves together, let alone get their evidence together. Some cases being considered by the Home Affairs Committee in the other place were exacerbated by accusations of racial discrimination.
	Plainly, detention in a secure unit cannot be in the best interests of asylum-seeking women. The detention of women who are abused and cannot speak for themselves is unacceptable in a civilised society. We would not wish it to happen to our own women, so why do we inflict it on others? There are many humane and non-custodial alternatives and I hope that we move towards those.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for facilitating the debate and for her excellent speech introducing the topic-as usual, with some merriment in it. International Women's Day is an important event in our calendar each year, and we have wide and interesting debates on it. Today, I want to talk briefly about women in Latin and Central America and their achievements.
	As the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Latin America, I meet many women from Latin and Central America. Last year, I was lucky enough to visit Bolivia as part of a parliamentary delegation. La Paz, its capital, is different from any city I have ever visited. The women, in their brightly coloured shawls, with their bowler hats on their heads at a jaunty angle and their babies strapped to their backs, are a joy to behold. I never did discover how the women kept those bowler hats on. They used no elastic or hat-pins; it is quite a miracle.
	With the Evo Morales Government in Bolivia promoting women and equality as a central part of their policy, the women we met truly believed that their time had come. He was re-elected in January this year as the Bolivian President. At his inauguration, one of the prominent pillars heralded was equal rights for all. He has opted for balance in terms of gender, regional representation and social class. The new Bolivian assembly includes women campesino leaders and former presidential representatives. The new Cabinet is 50 per cent made up of women, and every effort is being made to give more responsibility to women. That includes women being appointed as the new Minister of the Interior and the Minister for Rural Development and Land, the latter being a former campesino leader. Elizabeth Salguero, a feminist deputy for La Paz during the last parliament-she is now the MAS candidate for the mayor of La Paz, with the elections taking place in April-is delighted and says that she never expected to see such commitment to women. That is a great forward step for women in Bolivia that we can applaud today. I wonder whether whatever Government we have in power in the future will prove as positive towards the women in this country.
	I wish to talk briefly about a different country in Latin America-Mexico-and about a project of Pro Mujer, an organisation which financially assists women to better themselves in a number of Latin American countries. This is the story of Irma Torres, who is described as a social entrepreneur. Five years ago, she received a $150 loan from Pro Mujer to start a business in Mexico. Today she employs 18 people. Irma runs a water purification business out of her home. With her husband as her business partner, she meets her family's needs while providing potable water to her community. She used to work at a water purification plant, where she was underpaid and mistreated by the manager. Her three children suffered too. The older siblings had to go without shoes or milk. Alfonso, Irma's nine year-old son, suffered from asthma but there was no money for a doctor or medication. In 2004, Irma left her job and joined Pro Mujer. She started her own water purification business and began to turn her family's life around. Today, all of Irma's children wear shoes and get the nutrition they need. Alfonso sees an asthma specialist and has not had an asthma attack in over a year. The community benefits too. Irma gives her neighbours discounted water, employs community members and donates water for every community event-another success story.
	El Salvador is a smaller but important country in central America. In its recent report to the UN Human Rights Council working group on its universal periodic review, El Salvador outlined the work of the Salvadoran Institute for the Advancement of Women. This institute is responsible for overall policy for promoting the comprehensive development of women in El Salvador and, interestingly, stresses that part of this policy is a life free of violence within the family, the working environment and social, political and economic spheres. To further this, 13 departmental offices have been established throughout El Salvador, co-ordinated by the institute.
	In the time available, I have been able to give only a brief outline of some activities in the women's field in Latin America, and, of course, these are three good examples. I could have raised some of the many difficulties that Latin American women face, but on International Women's Day I wanted to be positive rather than negative. I hope that this brief speech has been of interest to your Lordships.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I gently remind colleagues that everyone is running to nearer six than five minutes. The Minister will therefore have no time to answer some excellent contributions.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I shall try to keep to that.
	In considering this debate, I thought that I would take a look at the early years of the last century to see how women were regarded in those days. It was a delight for me, as an ex-professional, to learn that in 1900 women were allowed to compete in the Olympics and that a British woman, Charlotte Cooper, won gold for the women's tennis singles. This is nicely balanced by Amy Williams's gold a couple of weeks ago at the Winter Olympics, though I suspect that even Charlotte Cooper might be a little overawed at the method of winning it!
	In December 1903, Madame Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel prize. She repeated the feat in December 1911 after she isolated pure radium. In contrast, in January 1904, the Pope ordered Catholic ladies not to wear low-cut ball gowns, and in 1905 the Women's Suffrage Bill was talked out in another place. One MP stated during the debate that men and women differed in "mental equipment", with women having "little sense of proportion". A mere eight years later, in March 1915, the UK Government appealed to women to sign up for war work and devised a register of those willing to do so. Newspapers of the time reported the comments of foremen praising their new workforce for their energy, punctuality and willingness. Twenty-four years on and they were called upon again, serving in the Armed Forces, taking part in special operations and playing a vital role in the underground resistance to the German takeover. Others took to the land, making a large contribution to the survival of this country as the renowned Land Girls.
	Since then, women have continued to work in agriculture but their role has expanded. They are employed as scientists, researchers, engineers, agronomists and advisers. Some are senior managers in the food industry. Women have become partners in farming, formed their own businesses, initiated diversification on farms, created new businesses and dealt with the proliferation of paperwork. They are fully exposed to the stresses and strains caused by the outbreak of disease among livestock and crops. This country has some outstanding women in the vanguard of agricultural progress, such as Christine Tacon, general manager for the Co-op farm group. Christianne Glossop, Chief Veterinary Officer for Wales, Caroline Drummond, chief executive of LEAF, and Caroline Cranbrook, a very well known campaigner for local foods, to name but a few. Of course, I can never forget my noble friends Lady Trumpington and Lady Shephard, both highly respected former Agriculture Ministers.
	Thousands of women in Britain continue to make an important contribution and today we applaud their enthusiasm, commitment and skill. In Africa, too, where the average farm is less than two hectares, women play a vital role in feeding the people, making up 80 per cent of the workforce in sub-Saharan Africa. The Christian charity, Send a Cow, recognises this by helping them to grow enough food to eat, sell the surplus and develop a small business in the longer term. It provides training, livestock, seeds and ongoing support. Its excellent pass-on scheme ensures that the first female offspring of each donated cow is passed on to another needy family and thus, with the minimum of paperwork and maximum female influence, livestock and knowledge are shared.
	Another woman who has made a huge difference is Kenyan, Wangari Muta Maathai-I hope that I have pronounced her name correctly-who founded the Green Belt Movement, an environmental non-governmental organisation focused on planting trees. She was elected as an MP and served as an assistant Minister for the Environment and Natural Resources. In 2004, she became the first African woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. I must also mention the Sierra Leone project supported by Soroptimist International. The money it has raised has helped to support healthcare, education, secure housing, and access to income generation for women in Sierra Leone.
	None of this work would be possible without the generosity of thousands of people giving to this and other overseas charities. British families have a tradition of generously supporting other countries. Water Aid and Christian Aid are internationally known, but small schemes make a huge difference. It is right that, at this time, we remember ways in which we can help each other. I thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon for giving us this opportunity today.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for securing this timely debate. I will speak about an issue that has had a profound influence on women's social and economic well-being, as well as on their physical health and happiness. That issue is contraception, which has enhanced women's rights as a whole, as well as their reproductive rights, both nationally and internationally. I am so pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, mentioned family planning.
	I declare an interest as president of Brook Advisory Centres and a patron of the FPA and Women and Children First. I realise that many men have supported contraception but many of the early pioneers were women. How brave those women were in those days. Now, of course, there were many ancient ways of trying to prevent conception-for example: wearing asparagus; applying medicated steam to fumigate the vagina; or using a pessary of crocodile dung and honey. Crocodile dung was not readily available in north-west London or New York, so it is as well that women set about being more practical and brave, as I said.
	Annie Besant, in 1876 defended an American booklet on population, The Fruits of Philosophy. She had many battles with the law. In the early 1900s, Margaret Sanger, an American nurse, promoted birth control methods and was indicted and convicted as a public nuisance. Marie Stopes, after many battles, opened the first birth control clinic in the British Empire in Holloway, London. Working-class women flocked to it-2,000 attended a rally that same year. Affiliated clinics were opened one by one. In 1924, Margaret Lloyd and a friend raised £100 to set up a clinic in Ladbroke Grove. They were moved by pity that few uneducated or poor people had access to family planning. Prejudice against women taking control of their fertility was rife. Some women who attended the early clinics had to be secretive about using a method of contraception. One woman in the Midlands told a family-planning worker that she had to hide her contraceptive cap "up the chimney"-I do not think that was a euphemism for part of her anatomy.
	After the Second World War, contraceptive advice through Family Planning Association clinics was at first provided only to married women. Clinics asked unmarried women to come back after their honeymoon. Others were asked to bring a letter from their vicar or family doctor to prove that they were about to be married. Woolworths did a great trade in small brass curtain rings which women wore as wedding rings when visiting a clinic.
	To return to the bold Marie Stopes, letters to her now published reveal the depth of fear and ignorance about sexuality and birth control. Bertrand Russell was told before his first marriage that the use of contraception had made his father epileptic. A doctor was reprimanded for helping a woman who, in the eyes of a critic, did not belong to the "Society of Confirmed Virgins". Marie Stopes herself did not know it all. Her advice to a woman who believed she had gonorrhoea was:
	"You acquired it quite innocently from a school lavatory, the seats of which are very dangerous and have been the cause of many wrecked lives".
	She recorded that one woman took 12 Beecham Powders a day and another gunpowder to try to induce an abortion. The horrors of back-street abortions are well known: how much better to have enlightened education and services.
	Contraceptive and sexual health services must be protected and developed both nationally and internationally. The Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV, chaired by my noble friend Lady Gould, who unfortunately cannot be here today, published a report providing compelling evidence of the economic and social case for contraceptive services, preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. The Department of Health has committed to a three-year investment in contraceptive and abortion services, yet commissioning structures, the building of strategic partnerships and investment in prevention still require more development. Can my noble friend the Leader of the House restate her support for services which are so essential to the health and well-being of women and families?

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Tonge, the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, and others have already reminded us that we still have a long way to go. The chilling account from the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, of the behaviour towards women in detention and their children is something this House should address closely. It is not to the credit of the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and others made clear that we are also making some advances. That is important to lay down. It is not only in Britain but in many other countries-not least developing ones.
	My point will be brief owing to time but I want to make it strongly. It is a radical and strong point. Cherie Blair said in her memoirs that most women in politics had defined themselves in terms of their relationship to men. The first great wave of women leaders in the developing world over the past 20 years have almost invariably been either the daughters of great leaders-such as Benazir Bhutto or Mrs Gandhi-or their widows-such as Mrs Aquino and almost all the leaders of Bangladesh and of Sri Lanka. These women, remarkable though they have been, have been taken seriously only because of the relationship they had to some leading male. Excitingly, there is now a new kind of women's leadership developing. It is about that that I want to address my few remarks.
	Look at the list of countries where 40 per cent or more of the people involved in representative democratic leadership are women. We all know in this House that the list consists of virtually every Scandinavian country-Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark-and some other, rather surprising countries in western Europe about which I have another word or two to say. Every one of those countries with more than 40 per cent representation by women meets the normal criteria of what it is to live a civilised and cohesive life-the rule of law, the acceptance of educational opportunities for women as well as men, objections to violence and a strong emphasis on conflict resolution. We are looking at a new division in the world. It is not the traditional division between the developed and the developing worlds but between those societies that are genuinely balanced between the genders and those subjected to what can only be described as continuing patriarchal power.
	We can be quite precise about where most of that second group are. They are most of the Arab world, the Maghreb, Russia and central Asia-countries which do not meet the human rights criteria I have laid out. They are still addicted to the old patriarchal power of male attitudes and have not yet accepted that both genders are essential to a civilised and decent society. If you look not at the list of the rate of economic growth but, in our own Library, at the United Nations Human Development Report-the crucial measure of the quality of life and not just the quantity of economic output-in the top 20 countries are all those that have 40 per cent, or near it, female representation in their cabinets and parliaments. That is a staggering difference and one we would be unwise not to take seriously. The patriarchal countries still suffer in economic and social development from their rejection of the contribution that women can make. The United Nations has pointed out that this is one of the most marked distinctions between developing countries that are doing well and those that are not.
	I remind the House of one striking example of this. In South Africa, every committee engaged in the creation of a new relationship between white and black had on it at least one woman. Nelson Mandela insisted that there was female representation on all those committees from beginning to end and from top to bottom. South Africa is an example of the great contribution that women have made. Another country, Bosnia, is still plagued by extreme conflict and secular prejudice and hatred. In the wisdom of the West, we imposed the Dayton agreement. There was not a single woman representative on that. Absolutely no time was given to the issues of whether there were equal rights for and representation of women. Perhaps most seriously, in a country where rape was deliberately used as a weapon of war, there was no discussion of rape. I beg to put my case. It is a radical case but I believe it to be true.

Lord Crisp: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate and on her speech. I use my few minutes to talk about women, development and health in the poorer countries of the world. I will draw attention to two major, continuing problems facing women in these countries, and the way in which women are building their own future and are truly worthy of celebration today.
	I start by following the noble Baronesses, Lady Tonge and Lady Massey, on maternity. At the time my mother was born in 1915, a woman in this country had about the same chance of dying in childbirth as is true in many poor countries today. For example, in Bangladesh it is about 1 in 200 or 250. That is not an extreme example. In places likes Afghanistan and Sierra Leone a woman has a 1 in 8 lifetime chance of dying in childbirth. I mention my mother because so much has changed. The difference is extraordinary from 1915 to now. We know how to make the difference: the science is the same. This is about science and resources. We know how to treat a woman in pregnancy to ensure, by and large, that she and the child have a safe outcome.
	However, there are deeper issues here. At least half the problems in many poorer countries are about social issues. They are problems such as in northern Nigeria where women cannot leave the house without permission of the man and so cannot get to services. They are issues about contraception, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, already mentioned, where the simple truth is that the more pregnancies a woman has, the more she is at risk of dying in childbirth. Some very interesting research has been done on this; for example, in Ghana, where a study looked at three different communities where women had different degrees of autonomy and independence. It was interesting to note, as one would perhaps predict, that in those areas where women had less independence and less autonomy, maternal mortality and maternal morbidity were higher.
	There is a similar and less well known fact about blindness. Eighty per cent of blindness is preventable or treatable; 90 per cent of it takes place in poorer countries. Here again, we know what to do. We know what the scientific and technical issues are and we know what resources are needed, yet-and this is much less well known-women are about twice as likely to go blind. This is not about genetics; it is because women are more at risk with childcare, more in contact with disease, more in contact with dirty water and more likely to get diseases such as trachoma, that awful blinding disease which strikes the eyelids. They are hit in a second way, because they are less likely to get treatment. I suggest that these two examples around health are similar to other diseases and that there is a great need for further social change.
	These social issues which affect women's lives are not just about men's behaviour and male hierarchies, although they are fundamentally important. African women friends tell me how much of a role women play in child-birthing practice, in how girls are educated and brought up in family traditions and in the things which constrain them and their opportunities. There is an echo here, I guess, of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the attitude of women on political selection panels of 30 years ago. These are genuinely societal issues.
	In drawing attention to these problems, I recognise that today's debate is about celebration. In development circles, we all know how micro-finance, the giving of small loans and credit to women, is leading to extraordinary economic growth and extraordinary improvements in societies through the opportunities that it provides. We also know that the education of women is probably the most important health intervention that one can make. The evidence suggests that if a girl has five years of education, her child is 40 per cent more likely to make it to the age of five. We can see this throughout poor countries, with many wonderful examples of women individually and collectively leading the way. I think of Ghana, where the Queen Mother's Association-your Lordships may reflect on how many other countries have a Queen Mother's Association-is taking the lead in tackling maternal mortality. I acknowledge the part played by Sarah Brown as patron of the White Ribbon Alliance in advocating and working with First Ladies globally to help them to lead on this issue, although I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in her remarkable speech, that First Ladies and Queen Mothers are dependent on monarchs and presidents who are normally men. I see the importance of education also in the women of Bangladesh with lesser status, who have massively reduced childhood death from water-borne diseases through a shared programme of education. One sees it everywhere in the growth of small businesses and in the development of the arts and cultural activities. There is much to celebrate and much still to work for.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, on securing this debate. When a similar debate took place about six or eight months ago, there were 12 speakers and only one of them a man: that was me, and I felt extremely uncomfortable. Today, we have 26 speakers and five of them are men, so we have certainly made some progress, but it also goes to show how far we have to go before there can be a genuine balance of representation along gender lines.
	The eighth of March marks International Women's Day. When we celebrate it, it is worth bearing in mind that it was initiated by the socialist movement, especially by the Socialist Party of the United States. That may surprise your Lordships, but it did exist in those days, and it took the initiative in sponsoring women's day. The day used to be 28 February and was transferred to 8 March in 1913. Next year, I am told, we mark the global centenary year of International Women's Day, when I am sure that we will conduct this debate even more vigorously than we have today.
	During the past 100-odd years, much has been achieved and the position of women has changed considerably for the better. There is greater appreciation of women's rights; there is greater recognition of their needs; and there is increasing education of women at all levels. There is also greater awareness of, and resistance to, domestic and sexual violence, and to many other practices such as dowry, female genital mutilation, honour killing and female foeticide that obtain in many parts of the world.
	However, in spite of those improvements, we still have a long way to go, in developing countries as well as in the West. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, it is worth remembering why changes have taken place in some developing countries and not in others. Three factors in particular have played a very important part. One is education. It is striking that development in women's education is closely correlated with the human development index. One could contrast, for example, Sri Lanka, with 92 per cent female literacy, and Myanmar, with 32 per cent female literacy. In the country that I come from, India, one could contrast Kerala, with female literacy of 97 per cent and a very high human development index, with a state up in the north, Bihar, where female literacy is 38 per cent and the human development index is extremely low. Education therefore plays an extremely important part.
	The second factor which has played a very important part is democracy, which gives women a sense of dignity and power, and a determination to take control of their own affairs. Democratic countries have by and large done much better than non-democratic countries where the human development index is concerned.
	The third factor has to do with active civil society associations. When they take up women's causes and give support to women with problems, the literacy rate among women tends to be high, and many of the social practices which hold them back tend to be contested and fought.
	I turn to Britain, which in some senses is the centre of our debate. We have made considerable progress under Labour during the past few years. In 1992, female representation in the Commons was 9 per cent. It began to go up in 1997 and, today, it is 19.5 per cent. Female representation in the Cabinet was 7 per cent; today, it is 17 per cent. On boards of public bodies, it was 25 per cent when Labour came to power; it is 33 per cent today. In senior grades of the Civil Service, it was 12 per cent in 1997; it is 29 per cent today. Among officers of the Royal Air Force, it was 8 per cent in 1997; it is 15.3 per cent today. Among university professors, the profession to which I belong, it used to be 8 per cent; today, it is 18 per cent. It is obvious that things have improved considerably, but there is still a long way to go. In the private sector, the picture is rather depressing. Just 11 per cent of FTSE 100 companies have women as directors; 22 per cent have no women directors. Of the banks, partly responsible for our chaos, only 8 per cent have female directors. If we had more, perhaps that chaos could have been avoided a long time ago.
	We can learn much from Norway. In 1984, 83 per cent of companies there had women on their boards; today, it is 100 per cent. Five factors are responsible for things moving faster in Norway and Scandinavian countries, all of which we need to bear in mind in our struggle in our own country. First, government pressure is very important. Secondly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has a very important role to play. Thirdly, freedom of information is important in finding out how certain companies behave and how they promote. Fourthly, private and public pressure is necessary to change the organisational culture of those companies. And, finally and most importantly, where equality is equated with uniformity women make less progress because their differences are not taken into account. Therefore, we need to define equality in such a way that differences are fully taken into account and fully reflected in the policies and practices of the organisations involved.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, I join all noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. This debate is important, because while we all recognise that much progress has been made to the lives of many women in the world, and that is to be congratulated, there is, ashamedly, a lot more to do.
	I will concentrate the few minutes available to me on women in and from the Indian subcontinent. As someone born in India-a country that has had a woman Prime Minister, a woman president and a woman Speaker of the lower House-in the great city of Amritsar, Punjab, into a Sikh family, and proud of my historical roots, it is also important that I raise the issues that need highlighting again and again. While we think that we are immune to their impacts here, sadly that is not the case.
	Where education has been allowed to play a major role in the lives of women, there has no doubt been positive progress to the outcomes of those women and their families. But large parts of the Indian subcontinent are still rural, and there remains huge poverty both rurally and in the cities, even though the economies in the region are growing at a phenomenal rate. For example, while India has a predicted economic growth rate of around 8 per cent this year, 400 million people live on less than a dollar a day. All countries in the region recognise that investment in education and training is the way forward to ensure that people are lifted out of poverty. In fact, on a recent visit to India, it was a great joy to meet the Minister responsible for education. He was determined that education should be available to every child in India-a huge task, but one that has the determination of the Prime Minister behind it. That is a positive step, especially for girls.
	I emphasise education as the key because it enables women to seek employment and to access services in their own right, and ensures that they know exactly what they are signing when unscrupulous men ask for signatures. While women from better-off or better-educated families live lives very much like those of the liberated women in the West, dowry, widowhood, the colour of your skin or just being a female remain huge disadvantages in these countries. While we may abhor these burdens imposed on women and girls, sadly these practices remain as traditions in many Asian families, even in Great Britain. Therefore, it is important to recognise that these practices continue to exist and that often, because the nature of these traditions is closely linked to cultural expectations, people feel resistant to challenge them.
	If we are to improve the outcomes for those females who depend upon us to be their voice, whether we witness cruelty and abuse here or know of its practice in other countries, we need to challenge the politicians and communities here and of those countries to respond.
	As someone who has supported women who have suffered terrible abuse at the hands of men, usually from their own families, and having always stood up for those wishing to go on to higher education because they were articulate and competent, I know how hard it is to change mindsets. But if those do not change, traditions do not change and cultures do not evolve. Wishing that your baby had died at birth must be the hardest thing that a mother can bear when she finds out that she has given birth to a girl. Sadly, for many families in the Indian subcontinent, that remains a reality, and let us not be lulled into thinking that it does not happen here.
	I pay tribute to all men who are enlightened and who value the great strength that women bring. It is vital that they play their role in helping to resolve the issues that we face. However, it is the role of women to ensure that they are enlightened. My mother empowered me with confidence and self-belief, but it was my husband who supported, and still supports, everything that I do.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on securing today's debate and on her sparkling and challenging speech. I think that all noble Lords would agree that while there is much to celebrate in the hard-fought-for achievements of women internationally, there is still a great deal more to do in achieving real equality of opportunity for women.
	In the UK, the Equality Bill currently going through Parliament will, suitably amended, be a positive step change-of that I am quite certain. However, we need to remember that today's world is global. Thus our concern and help for equal opportunities and women's achievement must also be global. Differences in wealth between countries and in the ways in which women are treated are huge. It is on how we can best help to increase global equal opportunities and achievements for women that I wish to speak.
	We will not succeed in improving the lives and achievements of women without first securing progress for girls. Women whose development has been stunted by malnutrition, who have been denied an education, and who have become accustomed to abuse and exploitation in their childhood, will find it harder to claim equality and realise their rights in adulthood.
	Plan International is an organisation that is a mover and shaker in this area. Its reports over the past three years, The State of the World's Girls, have highlighted some of the shocking discrepancies between young women's treatment and opportunities which combine to hamper development efforts. The reports outline how, in many countries, the birth of a boy is to be celebrated while the birth of a girl is a cause for commiseration. Male infant and child mortality rates should, in fact, be higher than those of females, as girls have a biological advantage over boys. Despite that, most of the 10 million children who die before the age of five every year are girls.
	One of the saddest consequences of the discrimination faced by young women is that they often have a shorter childhood and are forced to take on adult responsibilities earlier than their brothers. Their productivity and work in the home, caring for family members and carrying out domestic chores, which are increasingly recognised here, are seldom recognised there. The loss of childhood can have serious and dangerous consequences. Nearly 50 per cent of all sexual assaults worldwide are against girls under 15. One in seven of the world's girls will be married before their 15th birthday, and pregnancy-related illnesses are among the leading causes of death for young girls aged between 15 and 19 worldwide. The younger the girls are when they give birth, the higher the risk of complications and death, as other noble Lords have mentioned.
	Despite all this, we know that where they are valued, supported and invested in, girls can transform their lives, their communities and their countries. Educated and empowered girls are agents for sustainable change. I have two examples which I had intended to read to noble Lords, but there is no time. A 100-country survey by the World Bank found that only a 1 per cent increase in the number of female secondary students boosts a country's annual per capita income by 0.3 percentage points on average. That is an amazing figure. India alone misses out on potential economic growth worth around US $33 billion each year through underinvestment in girls. In developing countries, more than 60 million girls of primary age are out of school-more than all the girls in North America and Europe combined.
	While there is no magic bullet that can ensure that the millennium development goals are met, education, particularly secondary education for girls, should be a catalyst to hasten the achievement of all other MDGs by creating a demographic dividend whereby young women will have fewer children, reducing the number of financial dependents per worker, while at the same time spurring increases in per capita wealth.
	I hope that when the Leader of the House replies she will be able to confirm that helping girls worldwide to achieve an education and skills for life will continue to be a top DfID priority.

Baroness Prosser: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for bringing this debate to the Chamber.
	In recent years, major changes have taken place in our society. Relationships between men and women were not as they were 50 years ago. Women are more likely to be financially independent, participate in paid employment, be well educated and expect to be treated as equals. Yet we have an hour-for-hour gender pay gap of 22 per cent. The gap is more than 40 per cent if you compare the rates earned by part-time women workers. We have women corralled into a narrow range of labour market areas. We have more women qualifying as doctors and lawyers, while their numbers are not reflected in consultancies or partnerships.
	Many of these problems would be better addressed, and solutions identified, if decision-making bodies were more evenly balanced, enabling the voices of women as well as men to be heard. Unfortunately, we are a long way from that ideal. Women occupy only 19 per cent of seats in the UK Parliament and make up only 11 per cent of FTSE 100 directors, and only 33 per cent of non-executive directors on public boards. As long as decisions on strategy, direction, employment policies and so on are made by groups of people who are unrepresentative either of their workforce, customer base or society at large, those decisions will not contain the richness of life's diverse experiences.
	Our Government have taken a number of initiatives to try to remedy the diversity deficit on public sector boards. Both the Women's National Commission and the Government Equalities Office are running programmes up and down the country that bring in women with board experience to encourage and assist other women who would like to get more involved.
	Changing the male/female balance on private boards is trickier for government. Such decisions are rightly made by companies themselves. I do not believe that male directors make deliberate decisions to keep women away from company boards: I think that most of these people have no idea how to bring about change. They do not think about how to advertise, or how to ensure that the image of the organisation will appeal to women. They do not test out the headhunters-firms that are paid significant sums and yet time after time identify potential candidates from the same pool of people: safe, known and just like the ones we already have. A few weeks ago in this House, I proposed that the Government should address the problem by bringing together an exemplar group of companies so that issues could be considered, ways forward identified and best-practice guidelines produced. I hope that the Minister will push this proposal with her colleagues.
	So what of this House and the other place? The Labour Party decision on all-women shortlists, taken some years ago, has obviously made a difference, not only to Labour representation but to the thinking of the other parties. However, with only 19 per cent representation, there is clearly some way to go. The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly both started with a blank sheet of paper, enabling better and more representative systems to be put in place. The UK Parliament does not fare well in global comparisons. It has already been mentioned that Rwanda leads the way with more than 50 per cent female representation. Sweden has 47 per cent and Argentina 40 per cent. Even Bahrain, placed in the conservative Middle East, betters the United Kingdom with 28 per cent female representation in its parliament.
	Change will not come about by osmosis. Saying that we want more representative systems will not make that happen: we must identify the hurdles and stumbling blocks and determine to remove them-and by "we", I mean all of us.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for this debate.
	I received the briefing pack prepared by the House of Commons Library, with the social and general statistics setting out the trends in female representation in public life. The note covers politics, public appointments, civil servants, the judiciary, the NHS, education and leading private sector vocations. Many of the statistics have already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. I will resist the temptation to repeat them. The statistics are predictable. The rate of advancement of women has been slow, and there remain many areas and positions where women are significantly underrepresented.
	I will come back to my perennial grumble. I say this every time I speak in such debates. One significant area where there is zero representation of women is on our Bishops' Benches. I do not for one minute underestimate their contribution on equality matters, but it would be helpful to know when we can expect this anomaly to be rectified.
	It is right that we celebrate the economic, political and social achievements of women; but there is much more to be done. This debate comes in a week when the London Evening Standard has highlighted the dispossessed in our society. It has called for action to tackle deprivation. It talks about a London which has two faces. In the richest capital in Europe, almost half our children live below the poverty line. A society cannot live in peace and celebrate success if a great many of our population live in poverty and squalor. The London Evening Standard deserves our praise. It should galvanise politicians to realise that promises alone are not enough. There must be a determined effort to eradicate the factors that condemn individuals to the so-called cycle of deprivation.
	Elimination of poverty and deprivation, both nationally and internationally, should not remain simply a political issue. Although many decisions that politicians make impact substantially on poor and deprived communities, there is also a significant role for voluntary organisations. I declare an interest: I am associated with Plan International. It is an independent organisation with no religious, political or governmental affiliation. It has a vision of a world in which all children reach their full potential in societies that respect people's rights and dignity.
	Our research into the state of the world's girls and young women over the past three years has revealed that they are often among the most vulnerable people in any given community: more likely to miss out on education and less able than their brothers to make a living. Those of us who are associated with projects both here and abroad can confirm that there are few, if any, cultures where women are not the primary carers for their own and other people's children. No one can dispute that girls are as capable as boys. Wherever in the world resources are provided for their advancement and development the results are striking. Give a girl skills and opportunities and we will be rewarded with a healthier, more educated, society.
	The single best investment is to prioritise adolescent girls' access to education. Plan International has concluded-and we all agree-that investment in a healthier, better educated, more economically capable generation will, when multiplied, have a massive impact on the productivity and economic viability of the country that invested initially in just one girl. Since this is a time-limited debate, I will avoid the use of statistics, except to say that I commend the report, I am a Girl, which has been produced by Plan International.
	The key recommendations we should be pursuing are: prioritising girls' education; challenging gender stereotypes; educating girls in post-conflict and post-disaster settings; increasing vocational training opportunities; listening to and involving girls; and collecting better data on female outcomes in education. These are not just my recommendations but the recommendations of a number of similar organisations. Let us hope that we can move in that direction.

Baroness Coussins: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for securing it. Given the title of the debate, the issue that I wish to raise is global but not necessarily a celebration. I want to draw attention to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 about women and peacekeeping. This resolution was passed unanimously as far back as October 2000, but it has never fulfilled its promise in implementation. I believe that the extent and nature of peacekeeping around the world would be significantly and qualitatively improved if the various practical measures agreed in this resolution to involve women in strategic and practical ways were more rigorously implemented by member states. In particular, I believe that our Government could do more to assist this process.
	Resolution 1325 was the first resolution ever passed by the Security Council that specifically addressed the impact of war on women and the contribution that women can make to the process of conflict resolution and sustainable peace. It was the first time that the United Nations formally required parties in a conflict to respect women's rights and to support their participation in peace negotiations and post-conflict reconstruction. The resolution calls for the prosecution of those responsible for crimes against women in a conflict situation and for extra protection of girls and women in war zones, where they are more often deliberately victimised and subjected to rape and other forms of sexual abuse.
	The resolution specifically calls for more women to be appointed to peacekeeping operations. The implementation of Resolution 1325 could be described as weak at best and abysmal at worst. This goes for the United Nations itself, as well as for the action or inaction on the part of member states. Neither Kofi Annan, who was Secretary-General when the resolution was passed, nor his successor has a commendable record in appointing more female special representatives of the Secretary-General-SRSGs as they are known-as required by the resolution. In fact, I suspect that the number of female special representatives is still in single figures, despite our own Dame Margaret Anstee being the first woman to be appointed to such a position in 1992, 18 years ago.
	What steps are the UK Government taking to press for better implementation of Resolution 1325 and, in particular, what action have they taken to propose and/or support the nomination of suitably qualified women for these posts of special representatives? I should also like to know what priority the UK Government give to working with the interagency Task Force on Women, Peace and Security, which was set up to ensure collaboration and co-ordination throughout the UN system on implementation of Resolution 1325. At what level of seniority are the UK Government represented and are they satisfied with the snail's pace of implementation?
	In addition, does the UK participate in either of the two less formal groups that were set up to press for better implementation? One is called the Friends of 1325. I understand that it is an ad hoc group of 26 UN member states, which was set up on the initiative of Canada. The other is called Operation 1325, which is an initiative of six women's organisations and networks in Sweden, although it operates internationally.
	Does our representative at the UN report regularly and specifically on activity around Resolution 1325? If so, will the Government draw it to the attention of this House? If not, will the Government instigate a new reporting mechanism that gives priority and prominence to the vital role of women in the arena of peace and security? If Resolution 1325 is not to remain in the category of academic interest only but to fulfil its potential of mobilising the talents and contributions of women in the pursuit of peace and peacekeeping, some positive action needs to be taken. This is a term and a concept with which the Government are completely familiar in the domestic context of equality. I would like to see it energetically applied to this desperately important global issue by a Government who understand it.

Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for calling for this debate today and apologise to her for arriving a few minutes late-it started a bit sharp. I have known of her reputation for working for women's improvement since I met her just over 30 years ago, when we were trying to get better and equal opportunities for women to stand for Parliament.
	There is growing recognition among everyone from the World Bank to the military Joint Chiefs of Staff and to aid organisations such as Care that focusing on women and girls is the most effective way of fighting global poverty and extremism. Women's issues are of paramount importance to our global economy and to our humanity. As an engaged and effective advocate among us, the noble Baroness fully understands the critical importance of raising awareness of gender inequalities and the tragic consequences of abuses happening around the world each day.
	I have a few insights. Although women comprise roughly half the population, their socio-economic contribution is woefully undervalued. They are primary family care givers, educators, homemakers and even breadwinners. None the less, they universally earn less than men. They are often denied property rights and even the fundamental freedoms of movement and personal agency. It is women who take out the micro-finance loans around the world; it is women who repay them; and it is women who continue to do that and be the breadwinners. In this country alone, because of the credit crunch, we will have to undertake micro-finance in Northern Ireland and parts of England. I hope that the Government will give support to the banks when they decide to take that on publicly.
	Maternal healthcare is alarmingly inadequate. Every minute, a woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth. Every year, more than 536,000 women die due to complications developed during pregnancy, while 75 per cent of maternal deaths occur during childbirth and the postnatal period. The vast majority of maternal deaths are avoidable when women have access to vital healthcare before, during and after childbirth.
	Human trafficking is thriving today. I have mentioned that many times in this House. Many Governments and many people are in denial of that trade. The income from human trafficking comes second after arms-before drugs-because a human being can be used more than once. I ask the Government to take up the issue not just at the various meetings in Europe; it, like maternal health, should be on the agenda at meetings of the G20 and the G8. Through the World Bank, we know the statistics on money-laundering that is brought through human trafficking.
	It is not just men who perpetrate that evil form of life; it is women. It is women who are the middle managers; it is women who take the cash. It is up to us to ensure that our Government and other Governments around the world put pressure on the banks and on the World Bank. A very eminent banker once said to me, "We know the clients of ours who do this, but we cannot tell you". It is important that that should cease. I feel very strongly about this, because people are put into awful servitude. Women make other women do this. They take their passports away. They take loans. It is a terrible disease.
	Through my work with Vital Voices, UN.GIFT, the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland and many other organisations dedicated to women and children, I have been privileged to promote equality. However, not enough women or men are promoting the equality of women today. This must be a joint issue. We cannot do it alone. I recently heard someone say, "Women should work together; we don't want to ask men for anything". I believe that, for us to succeed for future generations, we must involve ourselves, males, the private sector, NGOs and Governments.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, this annual debate has become a must for many noble Lords from all Benches, so it was with the greatest pleasure that I heard that my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon had managed to secure this debate. She has always championed the cause of women, long before it was fashionable to do so-never to balance the numbers but always because of the contribution that women make to our national life.
	Over the years, we have witnessed a significant change and an attitudinal shift in both women's and society's thoughts about women's equality and emancipation. Vast advances have been made. Internationally, there are, for example, women Prime Ministers and astronauts. Nearly everywhere, young women are gaining entry to university on equal terms, often beating their male colleagues in the degree league tables. Today, women can work and have a family. These are real choices which were not available in my day.
	However, internationally, many women still have a long way to go until they enjoy the freedom and achievements that we are lucky enough to experience. Sadly, women still bear the overwhelming burden of extreme poverty and deprivation in the developing world. More than two-thirds of the world's poorest people are women. With Mother's Day fast approaching, it is tragically appropriate to note that each year millions of women worldwide face serious injury, permanent disability and, sadly, in some cases, death, due to complications during pregnancy and birth. Those who choose not to go through birth face an even more uncertain outcome if they resort to an unsafe abortion. It is grimly estimated that every minute a woman dies needlessly in childbirth. Her baby will almost always die, too. Last year alone, almost 9 million children under five died, 40 per cent of them in the first month of their lives.
	Women and girls would be able to earn more money, and in a safer way, to support their families if they were better educated. They would be equipped to understand and challenge the stereotypes that hold them back and better prepared to protect themselves from abuse, exploitation and harmful traditional practices. However, currently girls constitute more than two-thirds of 130 million children who have no access to basic education. More than 72 million children are missing out on school; most of those are girls and many are disabled. There are several reasons for this. Some families simply cannot afford education and prioritise the boys in the family. In many countries, the infrastructure simply does not exist or is seriously lacking. Cultural attitudes create a huge barrier to girls attending school. Vulnerable groups of girls, such as orphaned, disabled or street girls, are even more exposed to discrimination and social disadvantage.
	Another issue is the violence that occurs in schools. In Malawi, it is reported that one in five schoolgirls has been sexually assaulted and almost one in 10 has been raped or subjected to attempted rape. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell the House whether the Government have had talks with agencies in countries such as Malawi, where this type of abuse is taking place in schools? What plans are in place not only to educate more girls and women, but to influence people in those countries to push the importance of women's education?
	We must praise and be proud of all the work that has been done to get to where we are today. On this day each year we celebrate the advances that have occurred, but we must never relent in trying to improve the lives of others who are not as fortunate as we are in this country.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for introducing this debate and for the manner in which she did so. Although much remains to be done, on such an occasion we can recall with pride what has been achieved in this country. It has not been easy. Generations of women have struggled and suffered to achieve what many of us now take for granted.
	At the beginning of the last century women did not have the right to vote. Participation in public life was not easy. Higher education was not thought appropriate for women, since they were expected to marry. Job availability was restricted. Equal pay was a joke. Maternity rights were unheard of. Women's rights to control their own fertility and to have access to methods of birth control were simply not discussed in polite society. Anyhow, information on these matters was difficult to come by for young unmarried women.
	Without the determined and, yes, the political activity of previous generations of women, the changes from which we have all benefited would not have been achieved. There is still much to be done. There is still an unacceptable gap between male and female earnings. Too few women are involved in political activity and in Parliament, although the main political parties are aware of that and seem determined to do something about it. The new Equality Bill is seeking to deal with the pay gap and other discriminations that still exist. More could be done about affordable childcare. There is an imbalance in pension provision for women. Not enough is done to ensure that older women receive proper and affordable care and more should be done to assist carers, most of whom are women.
	However, a number of those issues are now recognised and steps are being taken by the present Government to try to deal with some of them. Women who care about gender equality should join those who still struggle to build on the gains achieved by previous generations. Trade unions, which when I first became an official were very male dominated, are so no longer. Unions are active on behalf of women and many women are in leading union positions.
	The legislation which has been developed and which is part of the current Equality Bill rightly outlaws discrimination on grounds of religion and belief. That is to be welcomed. We are a multicultural society, but we should be aware that in some ethnic minorities repression of women is regarded as part of the culture. For such women, the situation can be dire. It is not only a matter of the clothing they may be forced to wear; they can be prevented from seeking work and their access to education can be restricted. Forced marriages are common. We must be able to give assistance to such women when they require it. Cultural considerations must not prevail; our law must prevail. The rights for women that were fought for and achieved by generations of women must apply to all British citizens, irrespective of religion or culture. In the mean time, let us remember with gratitude those who have brought us this far.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, on gaining this important debate on International Women's Day. It gives me particular pleasure also to speak after not just the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, but also the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, since together we worked hard in earlier years to gain more seats for women in the UK Parliament. It is pleasing to see that the rights of women have made a tremendous advance since my grandmother was a suffragist. The progress in the UK has been rapid and is continuing but elsewhere the picture is considerably gloomier.
	I am sure that we do not wish to achieve political opportunity for ourselves here in the UK and consider that to be the end of the matter. We need to look more widely in the European Union and even further afield where the pursuit of fundamental freedoms and the establishment of some democratic principles in the minds of differing societies and their enshrinement in law is not an absolute. If women's right to vote is to reach an international standard, we must pursue democracy as the way forward for those societies.
	It is interesting that the absolute prerequisites for women's political involvement do not necessarily require a fully secular constitution or even a fully democratic one. A secular constitution, for example, was not essential in Pakistan when I monitored the elections on 18 February 2008. Flawed though that election was and run under a resolutely Islamic and highly prescriptive constitution, women still had the right to vote and I watched them exercise it in their thousands.
	What about partial dictatorship? Even a partial dictatorship can achieve political involvement for women. The election on 6 November 2005 in Azerbaijan was most certainly not free and fair, as the OSCE declared, yet again women voted and I watched them work even in the political polling stations.
	What about new constitutions? Is it impossible for women to vote then? Not at all. Twice in Iraq in 2005, in January and December, I saw and assessed women in their millions voting.
	What, therefore, is the key blockage if the right to vote is there and if a woman has a right to a legal personality? I monitored the elections in Afghanistan in September 2005 and in Yemen in September 2006. Both those elections were deemed to be free and fair internationally-and, I believe, correctly-but in each of them the women had significant and essential difficulties not in getting to the polling stations but in what happened thereafter: in exercising their right to vote.
	I suggest that there are three issues on which our Government and our people must concentrate if we wish women worldwide to be politically involved. The first, as I have declared already, is the legal personality, but that has to be followed by social attitudes and mores that accept that a woman has a legal identity. The second is the capacity to read and write and to understand the voting process: how to place your vote independent of pressure locally in the polling station, and what holding a pencil, looking at a piece of paper and placing a mark on a piece of paper actually mean. Finally, there must be a reasonable expectation that that vote will be fairly counted. In Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent in Yemen, I witnessed women entering the polling station, getting behind the screen to vote by themselves, and being absolutely incapable of understanding the process because they had never learnt to read and write. They were heartbroken and in tears.
	How can we help? There are a number of very simple ways: adult literacy and numeracy, which alas is not a DfID priority; training domestic election monitors-another vastly important thing, particularly if they are women; and funding and managing courses and lectures in the run-up to an election on the basic electoral process, particularly for women. Our national policy should be the promotion of these elements of democracy as the certain, assured and evidence-based way to bring women of any country into the political process.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and congratulate her on securing this important debate today.
	There are not that many women in the world of politics, but where special measures are taken women can make their voice heard. One country with a new democracy is Rwanda, which I had the privilege of visiting last summer as part of a CPA delegation. I saw what women were doing there and how they were making a difference. I met women MPs-great, feisty women who had seen so much suffering in their country and were determined that the genocide of 1994 would never happen again.
	Equality is written into Rwanda's constitution, and women now play a big role in government. Rwanda is top of the league in the number of women in their Parliament-around 57 per cent. There are so many women in the Rwandan Parliament because of special mechanisms that are used to increase women's political participation: among them a constitutional guarantee, a quota system and new electoral structures.
	The women's movement mobilised actively around the framing of a constitution to ensure that equality become a cornerstone. It took account of international human rights instruments and conventions, including CEDAW, to which Rwanda is a signatory. The new constitution states a commitment to,
	"ensuring equal rights between Rwandans and between women and men without prejudice to the principles of gender equality".
	Rwanda's lower House, the Chamber of Deputies, has 80 Members. Twenty-four seats are reserved for women, and these elections are co-ordinated by a national system of women's councils. Women compete for the other seats on open lists and are elected by PR. They now hold 21 of these seats.
	Although the constitutional measures that have been taken in Rwanda have allowed women to play a major role, there are still great problems in the country. During my visit I learnt of the valuable work that the Department for International Development is doing to help and to work with Rwanda in a positive way. The UK Government want to help Rwanda build a more prosperous, fair and peaceful future. The UK is Rwanda's largest bilateral donor. It has helped to reduce the percentage of people living in poverty from 70 per cent to 57 per cent. It does much other work as well. This must be a help to women.
	Last summer, we met Rwanda parliamentarians who told us how much they wanted to become a member of the Commonwealth. The UK Government supported the move and last November Rwanda was accepted as a member. This move will be beneficial to Rwanda and to the Commonwealth.
	Rwandan women are playing a great role in rebuilding their country. There is much hope and expectation. I believe that we can learn a lot from these wonderful women. If a country such as Rwanda can see how advantageous it is to promote equality and to ensure that women play a great role in the organisation of the country, I have to ask myself why Rwanda is No. 1 in the league of women parliamentarians and the Westminster Parliament is No. 60? Rwanda has 57 per cent women parliamentarians and the House of Commons has 19.5 per cent, although I have to say that if it had not been for the Labour Party introducing all-women shortlists the percentage would be even lower.
	Quotas, all-women shortlists and zipping work, but there is still a great reluctance by local members of political parties in this country to select women candidates unless specific measures are put in place. Today, let us praise the women of Rwanda for their courage, their determination and their endless energy, and for how they can turn a very bad situation in their country to one for the better. Perhaps, as we celebrate International Women's Day, we can all recognise that we can learn much from these great Rwandan women.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I agree with many others today that the most effective way to raise the status of women is to invest in the education of girls. One hundred years ago, a Ghanaian educationist said that,
	"if you educate a woman, you educate a whole family".
	Since visiting a woman's project in India in the 1980s, I have also been a firm convert to "smart economics", which is the idea that women in business can be a catalyst to the whole community. That was in coastal Orissa, one of the poorest states, where CARE had adapted a nutrition programme so that mothers could benefit from a loan scheme and start small businesses. Since then, I have been a strong supporter of microcredit and have been generally convinced, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, that women look after money better than men.
	Studies of the Grameen Bank projects in Bangladesh show that the poorest women, as has been said, have the highest repayment rates. It is a well known fact that women do most of the work and are paid the least for it. Some find alternatives and the share of women in paid employment outside agriculture has continued to increase, but nearly two-thirds of employed women have vulnerable jobs. Low pay and poor conditions such as overcrowding characterise women's work in industry and gender inequality frequently leads to discrimination.
	Young women from poor, rural households start at a disadvantage, which is why the aim of millennium development goal 2 is to increase the enrolment of girls in education and why eliminating gender disparity in schools is so important. Removing school fees, recruiting more local teachers and building schools in remoter areas have helped to reduce this. DfID has set targets in the secondary education of girls, but progress needs to be measured by completion rather than only enrolment rates.
	Women's political representation-MDG 3-is slowly growing. We have heard from my noble friend Lady Coussins. More women have entered leadership positions worldwide, while the number of women speakers in Parliaments has remained high. We have also heard a lot about Rwanda's lower Chamber. However, I do not want to sound too enthusiastic about Rwanda. In spite of their new Commonwealth membership, the Government are still repressive and intolerant of criticism. Community courts are struggling with sexual violence and ongoing genocide cases involving rape, many of which end without respect for privacy for women or a proper judicial process.
	Finally, I would like briefly to highlight women's achievements in the Arab world, which are not always fully recognised, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicholson and Lady Williams, both mentioned. Women in Kuwait, for example, only gained the right to stand for election in 2005. Four women were elected to Kuwait's Parliament for the first time in May last year. Saudi Arabia has never had a woman in its Consultative Council, but it now has a woman Cabinet Minister. Here I declare an interest. My wife Caroline has been working on the Middle East for many years, and I know from her that many Saudi women are becoming much more active in civil society, business, and promoting social reform.
	The wife of the Prophet Mohammed, Khadija, was a businesswoman, and there are many in the Arab world who see her successful career as the true pattern of behaviour for Muslim women. As a recent ILO report states:
	"Empowering women is one of the most pressing challenges these regions have to face, and the main route to reaching this successfully is by giving women the chance of a decent job".
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and I hope that the Government will pursue millennium development goals 2, 3 and 5 on maternal mortality, which was also mentioned, with renewed vigour.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I, too, would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, on instituting this debate to honour International Women's Day, an occasion that is becoming a tradition and which is so much appreciated by all women Peers, and many men, in your Lordships' House.
	I make no apology for speaking once more on a subject I have often reverted to in the past. Usually, I have had to discuss female genital mutilation in a negative way. How often, in this Chamber, has the question been asked: how many prosecutions have there been? When the answer is "None", the reaction is one of great disappointment and sometimes indignation. Unfortunately, I am still unable to say that any prosecutions have taken place. The police are anxious to bring them, but are deterred by a lack of evidence. The practice of FGM is kept secret and few in the communities where it is customary are willing to reveal to the authorities instances of its happening. In spite of that, and in spite of the frustrations met with in all our efforts to combat this horrible practice, I have something new and more positive to say.
	The FGM National Clinical Group and I, as their patron, have together produced a film, now on DVD, which shows a reversal of FGM being performed by a woman surgeon. Although I declare an interest, I point out that none of us, including of course myself, has any financial interest in this DVD. It is not a venture designed to make money, but to improve the lot of women victims. It shows how infibulation, the cutting and subsequent stitching of a woman's genitalia, with all its consequent pain, suffering, inhibition of natural functions and difficulties in childbirth, can be reversed or, I may say, repaired-if not totally, at least to the extent of giving her a normal life. This surgical procedure, performed on a very brave young woman who volunteered to be filmed, was carried out under a local anaesthetic and shows that it is relatively simple to perform and takes only a short time.
	This DVD has the approval of the Chief Nursing Officer to the Government and of the Metropolitan Police under Project Azure. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has asked to use the DVD as a teaching and training resource. The object of making it available on websites to be seen by health professionals all over the United Kingdom is to show obstetricians, gynaecologists, midwives and nurses, first, the appearance of a woman's genitalia when she has been infibulated; and secondly, how comparatively easily the operation that liberates her from the constrictions of FGM can be carried out. Reversals cost the patient nothing. They are available on the National Health Service and can be done on demand. Once the operation has been performed, the woman who has had her FGM reversed can enjoy a more satisfactory sex life and a trouble-free labour and childbirth.
	The proliferation of the National Clinical Group's DVD is becoming extensive and we are gratified that many women are starting to avail themselves of this service-it is a triumph and an advance-but it makes, of course, no difference to our permanent aim to eradicate FGM, at least in the United Kingdom. However, this debate is for International Women's Day and women's achievements, and FGM is an international problem. Millions of women across Africa, from Nigeria and Sierra Leone to Kenya and Uganda, are at risk of FGM and for most of them it is an inescapable fate. If the practice of reversal spreads to other countries through the National Clinical Group's DVD, we who belong to the group and have worked together to make this film will feel that progress is at last being made.
	It is not of course the answer to what is an ongoing problem and one which is, in my opinion, generally underrated in worldwide estimates of women's suffering. However, if health professionals who are as yet ignorant of the appearance and results of FGM can be taught by this film to recognise and repair it, a considerable advance will have been made towards its eradication. For if its effects can be satisfactorily undone, performing it in the first place should gradually decline.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, not only on securing today's debate but on introducing it so well in a wide-ranging and excellent speech. It is always a pleasure to participate in this debate because the speeches are always informative, thought provoking, entertaining and, at times, deeply moving. Many speeches have focused on how much we have yet to do and others have focused on how far we have come. I was struck by that at the weekend when I heard on the radio a clip of an interview with Barbara Castle when, as the Minister for Transport, she was seeking to introduce drink-driving laws. The interviewer said, "You are only a woman. You do not drive. What do you know about it?" Her response was characteristically robust, but that demonstrates how far we have come in the time since she sought to do that.
	We are in the general election run-up and many contributions have focused on the less than glorious record of the United Kingdom Parliament in women's representation-only 19 per cent at the moment despite many years of sterling work by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and many others.
	I was particularly taken by the contribution of my noble friend Lady Williams and the link between the quality of governance in a nation and the number of women. If that does not give us pause for thought about how much more we need to do, I despair. It is sad that, whatever the political outcome of the general election in May, women will still be significantly underrepresented in our Parliament. That is very strange because there is no evidence that the public are unwilling to vote for female candidates; in fact the evidence is the reverse. In my party I do not come across the overt bias in selection processes that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, came across some years ago, but not enough women are coming forward. This is something that I am very exercised about. I am trying to understand why more women are not coming forward.
	It is a great pity that for most of the public the only thing they ever see of the work of an MP is the weekly testosterone-fuelled spectacle of Prime Minister's Question Time, which is very off-putting. It is a great shame that people do not get to see more of the other work of a Member of Parliament-representing their constituency, dealing with casework, being on Select Committees. These activities would feel much more worthwhile for women because, if noble Lords will forgive a sweeping generalisation, women on the whole would rather do things than be things. If what they see of an MP's work looks like a doing job, they would like to do it.
	The House of Commons has reformed and its practices have changed, but at glacial speed. It is still a very family-unfriendly place and we have to work on that. A colleague recently came to me with a proposal for job-sharing for MPs. My first reaction was, "How on earth would you ever make that work?", but she sat down and explained it to me. I have to say that it is very persuasive as a way of encouraging both more women and people with young families. Noble Lords will be able to judge for themselves because she is appearing on "Woman's Hour" next week to put this case. It is something that bears scrutiny.
	The role of women in business and industry was highlighted in contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Parekh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser. A number of organisations are now working to develop the roles of women and, like many other noble Baronesses, I am involved with some of them. I am a supporter of the Women's Transportation Seminar, which works with the surprisingly large number of women who work in transport and logistics, and I am a co-chair of Women in Public Policy along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris of Bolton and Lady Symons of Vernham Dean.
	The UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology is doing some great work in its sector. We have to be clear that this is not just a matter of fairness or equality, as important as those things are. The fact is that with an ageing population and the imminent retirement of a predominantly male workforce inside the engineering sector, the UK's ability to train and retain specialists in emerging fields such as low-carbon technologies is an essential part of our future prosperity.
	At the moment, despite having quite a low number of female graduates in the engineering sector, one-sixth of those who are qualified are currently not working at all and 70 per cent are working in other sectors of the economy. That is a shocking waste of an already scarce resource.
	As one would expect in this debate, many noble Lords have touched on the international dimension. I was particularly taken with the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, which in a way mirrored that of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about how having women involved in these key strategic areas makes a difference to the quality of decisions made. I look forward to hearing the reply from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House.
	During the half-term recess, I thought it would be good for my soul to take a short break from domestic politics and went along with a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Bangladesh. It is fascinating that Bangladesh has come up so often today. The role of women in society there is a key issue. It is a highly contradictory place; both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition are female-although I accept my noble friend's point that there is a sort of dynastic element to the politics there-and we met some impressive female Ministers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out, the Bangladeshi Parliament has dealt with underrepresentation of women in the directly elected part of the House by having a top-up reserve of 40 seats for women. Despite women playing a important role in Bangladeshi politics, though, life for most Bangladeshi women is very hard, particularly in terms of maternal mortality, which is one of the millennium development goals that they have not been able to meet.
	The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, talked about microfinance. One of the highlights for me of our trip to Bangladesh was meeting Professor Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank-the delegation was not a little star-struck. With the bank's amazing system aimed predominantly at women, it took enormous courage for him and his colleagues to overcome Bangladesh's cultural barriers to empowering poor women, but they have done so: 97 per cent of the current 8 million borrowers in Bangladesh are women, and the bank's community-based credit system has resulted in a loan recovery rate of 98 per cent despite the total absence of legal contract or sanction for default. Interestingly, the bank has started to try to run projects in Glasgow and the Bronx. I wish it good luck, but I fear that if it is trying to work in this country, our very inflexible benefits system will make it rather hard.
	The Grameen system works largely in rural areas, and has developed into a holistic approach to health, nutrition and education. At one time, Grameen was the country's largest distributor of seeds-a by-product of its drive to improve night blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency by encouraging women to grow vegetables.
	We were taken out of Dhaka to look at various development projects. We also visited the research unit at the cholera hospital, where they have developed oral rehydration therapy. By teaching these techniques to around 12 million mothers, the reduction of child and infant mortality in Bangladesh has gone from 285 per 1,000 to 75 per 1,000. This shows how much can be achieved by very small measures if you involve women.
	I am running out of time, but I am delighted to have listened to the debate and made my contribution.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to take part in today's debate, which celebrates the economic, political and social achievements of women. As always, this debate, which marks International Women's Day and links women around the world together, has drawn on the enormous experience and insight across your Lordships' House. I join the congratulations to my noble friend Baroness Miller of Hendon on securing this debate and on her thoughtful speech, which was delivered in her customary no-nonsense and humorous way. You never quite know where this debate is going to go; I really did not think that today we would hear about crocodile dung and asparagus as means of contraception.
	As we heard from a number of noble Lords, there is much to celebrate. The noble Baronesses, Lady Gale and Lady Coussins, for instance, reminded us of the very positive part women play in conflict resolution. I love the idea in my noble friend Lady Byford's speech of a cow being given to a needy family and then its first offspring being given to another needy family: that is true female solidarity. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, spoke of a new kind of women's leadership developing, and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke of the part that women entrepreneurs play. We also heard about women in business from the noble Baronesses, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and Lady Prosser, and the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, painted a colourful picture of the advances of women in Bolivia.
	However, there are still women in our country and throughout the world for whom life is a struggle, as illustrated by all noble Lords who mentioned the pay gap; I hope we are addressing this through the Equality Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, gave a moving speech on female genital mutilation. She never misses a chance to raise this in everybody's mind, and we thank her for doing so because it is truly gruesome. This theme was picked up by many others. My noble friend Lady Seccombe movingly told us that every minute a woman dies needlessly in childbirth; thoughts echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, the noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady Tonge, and many others. I apologise if I have not mentioned any other noble Lords. All contributions were worthy of mention, but if I do not start the main part of my speech now I am going to run out of time.
	One statistic which horrified me when I was doing my research was from a report by Kristof and WuDunn on turning oppression into opportunity for women worldwide: women between the ages of 15 and 44 are more likely to be maimed or killed by male violence than by war, cancer, malaria and traffic accidents combined. We should all keep that thought in the forefront of our minds.
	One of the challenges of this annual occasion is how to approach the subject in a new and interesting way. A particular problem when I was writing this speech at some unearthly hour this morning was what to include, because there is so much to talk about, especially as I have been privileged this past year to meet some truly amazing women from many countries, each with remarkable stories to tell. I decided to concentrate on three areas where I have a particular interest. In doing so, I declare an interest as the co-chairman of Women in Public Policy, as has already been mentioned, a member of the advisory council of women2win and a trustee of UNICEF UK.
	As my noble friend Lady Verma reminded us, education is at the heart of all that we aspire to in raising the well-being and status of women. The charity Plan-it was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia-is working to highlight the situation of girls and women in developing countries who, because of their gender and age, are prevented from reaching their full potential. It reminds us that girls have enormous untapped potential and that educating them is the key to achieving millennium development goals.
	I am proud that my party, in its programme of direct social action, has played a small part in helping in Bosnia and Rwanda. In Bosnia, my noble friend Lady Warsi led a team of MPs, candidates and volunteers that helped a community devastated in the genocide. As part of that project, in conjunction with Microsoft, they put a computer suite into a school-Microsoft provided the computers, and our team did the decorating. A haulage company gave its services free to transport toys donated by Mothercare and the Early Learning Centre to a school for children with special needs. All that helps the lives of women and children in their communities.
	Sometimes the problems that we face seem insurmountable, but small acts repeated by lots of different people in lots of different places can start to build unstoppable momentum. We should pay tribute to charities, businesses and individuals who give their time and money to help make the world a better place.
	One such individual is Lynne Franks. I met Lynne when we were both speaking at the Women in Business conference in May last year, which brought together a spectacular array of talented and influential women from the Arab world; I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on the achievements of women in the Arab world. Lynne invited me to a breakfast hosted by the charity V-Day UK, to meet women from the Democratic Republic of Congo. From a debate in your Lordships' House on the Congo in which I had spoken, I knew that life was tough for women and children in the DRC, but reading about it in a briefing paper was as nothing to hearing first-hand the horrors that women and young girls are subjected to on a daily basis.
	Lynne Franks had discovered that, on 19 November 1909, the then Archbishop of Canterbury and the churches had held a mass rally for the Congo at the Royal Albert Hall, and she determined that she would repeat that 100 years to the day later. On 19 November last year we commemorated the 100th anniversary of the great Congo demonstration, this time with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, who is deeply committed to the plight of the people of the DRC, officiating. Yet again the stories of the degradation of women and children were harrowing-the grandmother raped who did not make it to hospital; the four year-old girl raped who did and, thank God, survived.
	From all that, there is a ray of hope. Eve Ensler, the celebrated author of "The Vagina Monologues", told us of the City of Joy, a special facility being built by V-Day and UNICEF in partnership with the Panzi Hospital Foundation for the survivors of sexual violence. It will provide medical services, education, leadership skills, information on income generation and lessons in self-defence, and will train those women to become community activists. Most of all, the City of Joy will provide women and girls with a place to heal emotionally and to rebuild their lives, and then they will return to their homes to lead and mend those communities. The City of Joy opens on Monday-on International Women's Day-and I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House will wish it well.
	That is a supreme example of women supporting women. Closer to home, many of us speaking in the debate have encouraged and mentored other women to play their part in political or business life. One of the things of which I am most proud is my time as vice-chairman of the Conservative Party, with responsibility for candidates. In a few weeks we will face a general election. Whatever the outcome of that election, my party will look and sound very different indeed. If the British people put their trust in us, and we win by just one seat, we will have around 60 women MPs, compared with the 18 we currently have.
	I hope that I will be able to take a particular pleasure in some of the election results as I will remember the part I played in helping to persuade some remarkable and able women that my party really had changed and was serious about putting in place support and mentoring of women-alongside new ways of selecting candidates-which played to women's strengths. But enlightened men have been vital in this journey; men such as my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, who first tasked the party with looking more like the country it aspired to lead, and then my right honourable friend David Cameron, who took action immediately he became leader to promote candidate diversity.
	With determined women and enlightened men there is hope that one day we will live in a world where women are valued and play their full and rightful part in politics and business. What a better world that would be.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, it is, indeed, a real privilege to respond to such a stimulating and wide-ranging debate.
	I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, not just for tabling today's Motion, but for her work over the years in raising the profile of these issues, particularly the importance of encouraging more women into public life: 1993 was indeed a vintage year for the House of Lords and I know that my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton would agree. She is not in her place today because she is at a meeting of the UN, discussing issues such as the new UN agency for women. The Commons' loss is certainly the Lords' gain.
	The noble Baroness was today customarily generous in her comments. It is testament to the way in which we work in this place that we can be political but consensual on many issues. I also pay tribute to the large number of speeches we have heard today from men and women in which an extraordinarily wide diversity of issues were raised, and to the way in which they were raised.
	However, I argue that though we have seen real progress on equality we know too that there is still a long way to go. In many societies, in many ways, including in our own, women still have very tough, demanding lives. As we recover from recession, those tough demands on women are continuing.
	Next Monday we will celebrate International Women's Day-a time to think of women's achievements and reflect on our progress towards equality. I am certainly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and to my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden for giving a historical perspective and for demonstrating how far we have come. The noble Baroness mentioned Amy Williams and her great achievement in the Olympics. It is a fantastic achievement, but I draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that in last Sunday's Observer-the day after she had won her gold medal-I think that she was on page nine of the sports section, after many pages devoted to football.
	I wish to touch on the international perspective of the issues before us. Progress on gender equality is a global aspiration. It is essential to the achievement of the eight millennium development goals agreed 10 years ago. While international development work has made significant differences to the lives of women and men, there is increased recognition that there is more to be done in progressing gender equality and women's empowerment. Women's economic participation and empowerment are key to supporting economic development and growth and are increasingly seen as a core aspect of work in developing countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, made a radical case, linking the economic and social success and well-being of developing countries with that of developed countries. She linked that to the participation of women at every level in those societies. I am certainly persuaded by that radical case. We should look much more closely at the arguments that she has made. These relate to the issues that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on the important issue of Resolution 1325. Like the noble Baroness, I am anxious to ensure that the resolution is properly implemented. She asked a raft of questions. I will reply in writing with pleasure and will place a copy in the Library of the House.
	The UK Government, through the Department for International Development, have committed themselves to strengthened efforts to promote gender equality and women's empowerment-goal three of the MDGs-across all our work alongside donor partners. Gender discrimination and inequality impede progress against all the MDGs, including improved maternal health and universal primary education. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, reminded us of the importance of MDG 5 on the improvement of maternal health and the work of the White Ribbon Alliance to promote maternal health. Population development and reproductive health are inextricably linked.
	Like many others, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Rendell of Babergh on her tireless work to raise awareness about the horrific practice of female genital mutilation. I have watched the DVD she mentioned. It is deeply distressing but also in a funny way uplifting because it shows that the quality of life of some of these women whose lives have been blighted can be improved. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, also spoke of the tragedy of the number of women who die every minute as a result of poor maternal health.
	I am glad to reassure my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen that we are firmly committed to support for reproductive and sexual health in this country as well as in developing countries. My noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen drew our attention to the progress being made by women in Bolivia. We celebrate their achievements and those of Irma Torres in Mexico. Pro Mujer is clearly an excellent organisation and a fine example of social entrepreneurship. As many noble Lords have mentioned today, Bangladesh is an outstanding example of what can be done. My noble friend Lady Goudie brought this issue home when she spoke of the need for more microfinance in, for example, Northern Ireland and the role that women can play.
	The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, drew attention to health issues in developing countries that specifically affect women. I was ignorant until today about the link to blindness. I will certainly make sure that I know much more about that.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others spoke of the role of women in educating and influencing their families. My noble friend Lord Parekh linked education to the UN human development index. That is precisely why MDG 2-to eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education-is so important. I am informed that this goal of achieving parity in primary school enrolment between boys and girls will be achieved in 2015 everywhere except sub-Saharan Africa. That is why this Government have prioritised girls' education especially in Africa; for instance, with our support of the United Nations Children's Fund girls education project where we have increased enrolment between 10 and 15 per cent across six states in northern Nigeria. That is certainly something to celebrate.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, also spoke on education, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. I agree with the noble Baroness that by educating girls we change cultures and societies and I can confirm that this will remain a priority for DfID. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, Because I am a girl is an excellent report. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, provided us with evidence of the profound impact that education has on many issues, including women's participation in democracy. We should be mindful of that and also the role that women play in countries such as Rwanda, as my noble friend Lady Gale mentioned.
	Just last month, on 3 February, my right honourable friend Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality, co-hosted in Cadiz with the Spanish EU presidency the biggest ever European gathering of European women Ministers. The joint declaration from this meeting called for a more balanced representation in public life and the removal of obstacles which prevent the full participation of women in all areas of society and their access and progression in decision-making positions, thus contributing to a fairer, more equal, inclusive and successful society. These are fine words and fine aims, and they are at the heart of what we are discussing today, but we need more fine action.
	On parliamentary participation, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, was right that we need more women to come forward as candidates and more women on selection bodies. She was right also that women would be more attracted by parliamentary life if there was a better understanding of MPs' roles in the round and they did not see just PMQs every week-not that PMQs are a bad thing, but there is much more to parliamentary life.
	This debate comes at a particularly opportune moment. We have seen in recent days and weeks considerable focus in the media and elsewhere on "feminism-40 years on". Consideration has been given to how far and in what ways equality has progressed over the decades. Although we still have some way to go in achieving the goals of the Equal Pay Act of just 40 years ago, the Act was a real step forward in women's fundamental rights and in recognising the value of women's role in the economy.
	Forty years ago, things were very different, as many have said. Jobs were advertised as for men only and with differential salaries for men and women-there are still differential salaries, but they are not advertised these days. If you got married and had children, you could be fired. Women were not allowed on the floor of the Stock Exchange. Working married women still had to have their tax returns signed by their husbands.
	Today, we are in a very different place. Women now make up almost 46 per cent of the economically active population. However, they still face barriers to progress in the workplace, particularly when they combine work and family responsibilities. As the Women and Work Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lady Prosser, emphasised again last year in its second report, we are still far from seeing a level playing field for women and men in our labour market.
	We are committed to tackling this. The women's employment strategy, Working towards Equality, which we published last month, sets out how the range of actions we are taking to respond to the current economic challenges will address the specific needs of women and help to ensure that our labour market offers women genuine choices, equal opportunities and career structures which enable them to progress and fulfil their potential. This is not just fair to women; it is an economic necessity. As we recover from the global recession, we need to draw on all the available talents to increase our productivity and give our economy a competitive advantage.
	Key aims of the new strategy, therefore, are to build a labour market where being a woman, a parent or a carer is not a barrier to opportunity or success in the labour market. Following recommendations from the Women and Work Commission, the strategy contained new commitments, including a new equality strategy for education to address gender stereotyping in education and career guidance-mentioned by several noble Lords-and increasing the amount of employment and enterprise support provided to parents in and around their child's school through the school gates employment support initiative, operating in 25 local authority areas. We will also consider and act on the report of the Family Friendly Working Hours Taskforce, set up last year. The taskforce brings together high-profile employers, organisations that act on behalf of businesses and employees, and key government departments to look at improving the availability and quality of family-friendly working practices.
	However, this is not just about family-friendly working practices; it is also about things such as public transport. Just this morning, I heard on the radio a young woman called Kathy from the Forest of Dean, where I happen to live. She spoke about the barriers presented by the paucity of bus services to her being able to further her education or find employment. We have to think about these things holistically.
	If we want to see how far women still have to go on the road to equality, we have only to look at women's representation on the boards of our major companies, as so many noble Lords have said. However, I do not think that I shall enter the discussion about women bishops at this stage. Evidence shows that, whether in the private or public sector, boards that have a diverse mix of people and talent make better decisions. We are therefore keen to work with business leaders to find a business-led solution to improving diversity on private sector boards. I can assure my noble friend Lady Prosser that I will strongly pursue her suggestion of a couple of weeks ago on exemplar companies. My noble friend Lord Davies of Abersoch is leading discussions with company chairs and nomination committee members about the need for boards to have the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience. The Government Equalities Office is also hosting an event with the CBI on 25 March to focus on this issue, and will shortly launch a new guide for businesses to signpost them to programmes and services aimed at supporting women into senior and board-level positions. As suggested by my noble friend Lord Haskel, I will certainly send a copy of this debate to the Financial Reporting Council for consideration as part of its consultation.
	The Government need to lead by example on this. Looking at the latest available figures, just under a third of public appointments are currently held by women. This is simply not good enough, so we are putting in place a programme of support to help us achieve our target for government departments to achieve a 50 per cent men-women balance in all new public appointments by 2011. I was shocked to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that only 18.5 per cent of members of Select Committees are women. I very much hope that the changes mentioned in the other place about the selection and membership of committees will have a positive effect. We should also look at what we do in this House.
	If we want to achieve the goals of enabling women to participate fully in the labour market and achieve equal representation in the most senior positions, we need to look at the real barriers which women face in balancing work and home life. Women are still the primary carers of children in our society and also provide much of the adult care-looking after elderly and disabled relatives. Women are supreme jugglers. For many women, working part-time or flexibly is a good option for them to achieve a balance between caring and social work.
	However, much of the part-time work available to women is low-skill, low-paid and concentrated in clerical, catering, cashiering, cleaning and caring jobs. Often the kind of work that women do is invisible and goes unnoticed, but if it was not done society would fall apart. One problem is that we do not place enough value on much of the work traditionally done by women, especially in the caring professions. I pay tribute to the many women working in this House who are largely unseen-the housekeepers-who do a very splendid job.
	Women should not be held back and their career potentially limited unnecessarily by their caring responsibilities. That is why the Government have taken a raft of initiatives.
	Before I conclude, domestic violence was referred to by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton. Many people are rightly concerned that when people are under pressure because of economic hardship, domestic violence may increase. We cannot say that we have achieved our goals for equality for women when this serious crime still claims the lives of up to two women a week. However, I am pleased to note that the most recent statistics published last July show that there was a 65 per cent decline in the incidence of domestic violence between 1995 and 2008-09. That has happened thanks to many of the initiatives mentioned by the noble Baroness. But there is no room for complacency. Last November we published a cross-government strategy, Together We Can End Violence Against Women and Girls, which sets out how we will progress our work to tackle all forms of violence against women and girls, including domestic violence. The noble Baroness also drew our attention to the dreadful phenomenon of violence used by young men against girls. Our strategy builds on the initiatives over the past decade, including the cross-government national domestic violence delivery plan, which has made a real difference in supporting victims and holding offenders to account. As the noble Baroness said, we should all be active on International Women's Day, and on that day I, with the Mayor of London, will be raising these issues about domestic violence. I hope that other people will be taking part in other awareness-raising meetings and so on.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, spoke about domestic violence in some developing countries, including Malawi. The Government are collaborating with the Government of Malawi, with their civil society organisations and with the United Nations Children's Fund to develop a comprehensive national plan in response to gender-based violence in schools.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, rightly drew our attention to the issue of women in detention. The news coming out of Yarl's Wood is disturbing, and it is important that the voices of these women are heard. But the picture is not as bleak as it is painted by some women. For example, it is wrong to say that women are starving. I will write to the noble Baroness and put a copy of my letter in the Library.
	This country is now emerging from recession. The recovery is fragile and we must do all we can to ensure a sustainable return to growth. Part of that will be an increase in employment and a fall in unemployment. An increase in jobs for women will be an essential part of that. For women as well as men, returning to growth and regaining employment levels will be a tough path. The battle to secure the recovery will be hard fought, but it is essential for the economy and for equality.
	In conclusion, this has been an excellent debate, and one that really counts. Promoting gender equality and women's empowerment matters because it affects all levels of society. It affects individuals because we want women to fulfil their potential and achieve their aspirations. It affects the economy because we want a strong economy that can draw on all available talent. It affects society as a whole because we want an equal society in which oppression is turned into opportunity; a society that is cohesive and in which everyone has a fair chance; a society where equality is not an objective to be striven for, but the norm. That is the way all of us, women and men, want to live our lives.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, something has happened to my voice. First, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate today, particularly because all but the Front-Benchers were limited to five minutes. In those five minutes, we got so much varied information that made the debate worthwhile. I ask noble Lords to forgive me if I do not mention them by name: I am cutting down my remarks because my voice has gone funny. This upsets me terribly, because I have written down all the nice remarks I meant to make. However, I assure the House that I will contact all noble Lords about whom I have something to say-that is, all noble Lords who have spoken-in the next few days, so that they will know how much I appreciated what they said. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, and the Leader of the House for thanking all noble Lords and commenting on all the wonderful things that were said from all sides of the House. Not everybody was mentioned, although they all deserved it.
	Today's debate has been excellent. It was not down to me: I tried to do as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. I am not sure whether I managed it, but I did my best. What came from the Floor was terrific. There were things that I did not expect to hear: it was all first class. Even hearing about cows was very interesting. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
	Motion withdrawn.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2010

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2010

Motion to Approve

Moved By Lord West of Spithead
	That the draft order laid before the House on 1 March be approved.
	Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Lord West of Spithead: Proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government's strategy for countering terrorism. The purpose of the order, if this House and the other place so approve, is to add to the list of 45 international terrorist organisations that are already proscribed. We propose to do so by adding the group Al-Shabaab to the organisations listed under Schedule 2 to the 2000 Act. This is the eighth proscription order made under the Terrorism Act 2000.
	Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it: commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation only if he believes it is concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, he may then exercise his discretion to proscribe the organisation. When considering whether to exercise this discretion, a number of factors are taken into account that were first announced to Parliament in 2000.
	They are: the nature and scale of an organisation's activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation's presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. Proscription is a tough but necessary power, and its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. The consequence of proscription is that specific criminal offences apply in relation to a proscribed organisation. These include membership of the organisation, the provision of various forms of support including organising or addressing a meeting, and wearing or displaying an article indicating membership of the organisation. Further criminal offences exist in relation to fundraising and various uses of money and property for the benefit of the organisation.
	Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises his power to proscribe an organisation only after thoroughly reviewing all the available relevant information on the organisation. This includes open source material as well as intelligence material, legal advice, and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Decisions on proscription are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is also right that both Houses must consider the case for proscribing new organisations. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that Al-Shabaab is currently concerned in terrorism.
	Although noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to go into much detail of the evidence, I can summarise that the group has waged a violent campaign against the Somali Transitional Federal Government and African Union peacekeeping troops in Somalia since the beginning of 2007. A feature of its campaign has been the adoption of terrorist tactics such as suicide operations and roadside bombings. It has mounted numerous such operations since 2007, including, for example, a suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive device in June 2009 in Beledweyne, one of the largest cities in Somalia, killing the TFG security Minister and around 30 others in the process.
	The group has also launched terrorist attacks outside areas under its control, most notably in October 2008 when five co-ordinated suicide attacks were mounted against targets in Somaliland and Puntland, including the Ethiopian embassy, presidential palace and UN Development Programme compound. In September last year, Al-Shabaab released a video statement in which it pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and, on 2 February 2010, members of the group announced their intention to combine the jihad in the Horn of Africa with the global jihad led by AQ.
	The proscription of Al-Shabaab will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters and will signal our condemnation of the terrorist attacks that the group continues to carry out in Somalia. Proscription will also show international solidarity against the organisation. Indeed, there is general international consensus in the condemnation of the organisation's activities. For example, it is already proscribed by the US, Australia and New Zealand. Proscription will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action more effectively against its supporters in the UK. It will also send a strong message that the UK is not willing to tolerate terrorism either here or anywhere else in the world.
	I understand that there may be concerns, particularly among the UK-based Somali population, about the impact of proscription. I reassure noble Lords that, providing UK law is complied with, the proscription of Al-Shabaab will not prevent the Somali community from visiting Somalia or from sending money to relatives. Furthermore, it will not prevent the Somali community from openly discussing issues pertinent to them and the situation in Somalia.
	It is clear that Al-Shabaab is not representative of Somali or Muslim communities in the United Kingdom, and I am aware that many such community groups have spoken out strongly against the organisation and its activities. Proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping, but is based on evidence that the organisation is concerned in terrorism.
	As a final point, I have already said that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact. Because of that, there is an appeal mechanism in the legislation. Any organisation that is proscribed, or anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation, can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be de-proscribed. If that is refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, POAC, a special tribunal which reviews whether the Home Secretary has properly exercised his powers to refuse to de-proscribe the organisation. POAC is able to consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions, and a special advocate can be appointed to represent the interests of the applicant in closed sessions of the commission.
	Given the ample evidence of Al-Shabaab's concern in terrorism, I believe that it is right that we add the organisation to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. We on these Benches support it without reservation, for the reasons that he set out. However, I have one or two questions for the Minister. The order proscribes Al-Shabaab, a group well-known for its violent campaign against the Somali Transitional Federal Government and African Union peacekeeping troops but, just as other terrorist groups use alternative names, so does Al-Shabaab. My question is: does the proscription order include Harakat Shabaab al-Mujahidin, Mujahidin al-Shabab Movement, Mujahadeen Youth Movement, and other names and variations? It is important to catch all the aliases. Does the proscription apply to all those aliases?
	The Minister mentioned that Al-Shabaab has a UK presence, obviously through the diaspora community. It would be interesting to know for how long the Government have been aware of the group's presence in the UK and how large he believes it to be. He mentioned that it is has been involved in sending people overseas to engage in terrorism and, I might add, in financial facilitation, which is an increasing issue. Can he give the House any figures for the amount of money that is suspected to have been transferred from UK sources or for the number of Somalis suspected of having travelled from the UK to engage in terrorist activities in Somalia, including training? It is clear, is it not, that one of our increasing preoccupations is with Somalia as a base for terrorism?
	Does the Minister agree that it will be difficult to tackle the informal hawala money transfer system? Part of the task that we need to engage in, apart from proscription, is closing down such channels. Can he say anything about that?
	The Minister also rightly said that proscription will facilitate the police in disrupting activities. What, if anything, are the Government able to do to encourage UK diaspora communities here to exercise their responsibilities regarding that group? Obviously, we need to encourage people not to support it. As noble Lords, know, we take the view that it is very important for the Government to promote the notion of shared values. Is anything being done to surround the proscription order in the area of what we might call "Prevent"?

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for explaining the order. Al-Shabaab will have expected to be banned in the UK, as it has been in many other countries. No doubt it will welcome the order. When it was added to the American list of banned organisations, a senior operative is reported to have told the BBC that the organisation felt honoured to be included on the list and that it was on the right path-a usual characteristic of martyrdom. Having read what this group does and has done, including its near-daily attacks against aid groups and the African Union peacekeepers, one of the most chilling things was to see that its name is Arabic for "youth". Its members are very young and it makes a point of recruiting the young.
	My questions are very similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, so I will not repeat the points that she has made. I look forward to hearing the Minister's responses. I have a couple of other questions, one of which is close to how the noble Baroness put it. Bearing in mind the need not to regard the group as in any way representative of all Somalis in this country or generally, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have discussed the issue with the Somali community in the UK? Also-again, almost the same question as one of the noble Baroness's-what recruitment has there been in the UK?
	We will not vote against the order. This is clearly a very nasty group. We well understand what the Government are doing. However, the Minister will know that we do not have huge confidence in the effectiveness of banning orders. They may have negative practical effects, such as becoming a badge of honour and driving a group underground, but we are not persuaded that they have much positive practical effect.
	I have one more question with regard to the name of the group. I think I have seen it called a small variety of similar names. I assume, but will welcome any confirmation, that the English spelling is not definitive in that, however the group's name is transliterated into English, it will be caught by the order.
	I wish I could think that what we are doing today will give practical help to the people in Somalia who have suffered very much at the hands of this group. However, we are passing the order and we will see it on its way from these Benches.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I have a follow-up question, further to those of my noble friend Lady Hamwee about the Somali community here. In my experience, when these small, foreign-based organisations are proscribed in this country, young people in particular quite often do not realise that the organisation they are signing up to-through friends from the youth centre or via the internet-is proscribed here. Are there Somali-language newspapers or communication channels where the proscription orders are posted? My experience of other groups that have been proscribed in the last few years has been that sometimes people who are sympathetic to the organisations do not realise that they are doing something unlawful by supporting the group.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I have one question. The Minister referred, rightly, to the atrocities that were committed by this group in Somaliland. Have the Government had any discussions with Somaliland about whether a banning order might be issued there?

Lord West of Spithead: I thank noble Lords for their input to this debate and I am pleased that people are generally supportive. I shall answer some of the specific questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She is right that it is important to catch all of these names and aliases. We saw this with al-Muhajiroun/Isalm4UK and so on. Some of the names she gave are not exactly the same one. This is what is so difficult. We have to ensure that we capture all the names. In the past, they have changed the name-I suppose not cleverly-and we have been playing catch-up, so it is a relevant point. We are looking at this and we must make certain that we have all these names clearly so that they cannot slip through the net. We have not been as good at that as we should have been, and I refer to those two other names where we did not catch them. We have got to do that and the point is relevant and correct.
	How long have we been aware of the presence of members of Al-Shabaab in this country? I would have to get back in writing but certainly we have been aware of that during my time in post. For two and a half years, therefore, we have been aware that there are people who are linked through to Al-Shabaab in this country. With regard to the issues of the community, there is a very large Somali diaspora in this country and, as is always the case in these concerns, the bulk of them are very good, law-abiding citizens. However, we have seen-this point was raised by both noble Baronesses-that numbers of them have been going back to Somalia. We have been concerned about a significant number of people going back to Somalia for terrorist training. We have been monitoring this very closely and it concerns us. I would not want to go into exact numbers but it is significant enough to have come well above our radar horizon. We monitor it closely and we discuss these issues with the Somali community.
	Since our Prevent strategy has come on line over the last two and a half years we have been getting better at this. RICU leads a programme to use the Somali language, media, newspapers and internet. In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, I am not sure that we have laid out the prescription on all of those and I will make sure that that is done because that makes sense. We do engage with them, however, on these issues.
	One of the key things that proscription does is to get at the money. Therefore the issues of the hawala are very important. The hawala prove very difficult for us to get our hands on. Although it is very difficult, we are working at it. In other areas, including the ways we have looked at various charities, we are getting better at stopping the finance flows for these terrorists. Referring to the al-Qaeda core, for example, there is no doubt that they are really hurting. We know from intelligence that we are getting our hands round the throats of the money side of things and that makes a huge difference.
	In terms of the Prevent strategy as well, when proscription is done this is looked at within the Prevent team to see what the impact will be at local level and within these communities. I did not mention that we have looked at the impact of this proscription order on Al-Shabaab and whether it will have an impact on DfID money flowing into the country and the ability for various NGOs and charities to work with people, because often these people are interlinked. The answer is we assess how we can go ahead without any problem on those issues. We just have to watch how that money flow goes and how it is done. It is an important point, however, and it was touched on by the speakers.
	My attention wondered when the noble Lord asked his question. May I ask him to ask that question again?

Lord Avebury: It was whether we had had any consultation with the Government of Somaliland about them imposing the equivalent of a banning order within their own territory.

Lord West of Spithead: I do not know the exact answer to that. They are busy fighting them all the time, so I would hope they would have some mechanism in place, but I do not know whether it is a mechanism like this. They are in effect at war with this group. As one knows, they are engaged in fighting them around the capital almost daily. I doubt whether there is a similar mechanism, but I will look at this again.
	I repeat that this is a matter of great importance. The order will contribute to our efforts to make the UK a hostile environment for terrorists. There is no doubt that Al-Shabaab meets all the criteria. We condemn what it does, which is pretty unpleasant. The violence is indiscriminate, and as such as I commend this instrument to the House.
	Motion agreed.

Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2010

Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2010
	7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion to Approve

Moved by Lord West of Spithead
	That the draft order laid before the House on 20 January be approved.
	Relevant Document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, this Government are committed both to strengthening the United Kingdom border and to facilitating the entry of legitimate passengers into the country. To help us to achieve this, the UK Border Agency has taken advantage of new technologies that secure and manage the UK border. One such technology is automated gates. This order facilitates the entry of automated gate users into the UK by amending the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000.
	Before I explain why the order is necessary, I will give noble Lords some information about automated gates, which are already in use at some UK airports. Automated gates speed the passage of legitimate travellers across the UK border by allowing permitted passengers to enter the UK lawfully without having to queue up at the manual immigration control. Automated gates work by verifying a person's identity and making checks against Home Office systems to ensure that they are eligible to use the gates and enter the UK. If the person is eligible, the gates open and allow the person to enter the country. If the person is ineligible, the gates remain closed and the person is required to seek entry at the manual immigration control. Use of the gates is entirely voluntary.
	The order is necessary because the current method of granting leave to enter to non-visa nationals who use automated gates is inefficient and outdated. Non-visa national users of IRIS automated gates are currently granted leave via a paper notice printed by the gates. When the gates' printers break down or run out of paper, the whole gate system is shut down and cannot be used by any passengers. Users also regularly forget to take their written notice from the gate, which then retracts the printout for security reasons, again taking the gates out of operation.
	The order provides a better and more efficient method of granting leave to non-visa national gate users. It will allow a UK Border Agency officer to authorise a person as someone who may obtain leave by using the automated gates following satisfactory screening. Thereafter, each time the person uses the gates to enter the UK, they will automatically be granted leave to enter for six months on the same basis as leave granted at the manual immigration control to non-visa nationals who seek entry as a visitor. In both cases, recourse to public funds and employment will be prohibited. The only difference is that gate users will not receive written evidence of their leave when they use the gate.
	In practice, the order will need to apply only to non-visa nationals, as the other types of traveller do not require leave to be granted when they seek entry into the UK. British citizens and EEA nationals do not require leave to enter the UK, visa nationals are granted leave in the form of a visa before they arrive in the UK, and foreign nationals who are settled in the UK already have limited or indefinite leave to remain in the UK. I trust that noble Lords will join me in supporting these provisions, which help us to deliver a safe and secure border while facilitating the entry of legitimate visitors into the country.
	It currently costs the UK Border Agency more than £2 billion to maintain our world-class immigration system. To fund this, we operate the policy that those who benefit directly from our immigration system should contribute towards the costs of running the system, so that we can balance this with the interests of the general UK taxpayer. This year's fee review takes place against a difficult financial context for the UK Border Agency, public finances and the economy as a whole.
	The regulations we are debating today are made under Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and in accordance with the powers granted in Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, as amended by Section 20 of the UK Borders Act 2007. Under Section 42, the Secretary of State can set a fee for an application at a level that exceeds the administrative cost of determining the application.
	The way our legal powers are defined means that we must also specify fees in separate regulations under the powers in Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. Those regulations set the fees for applications, processes and services that are provided at or below the administrative cost of determining the application. These regulations were laid in Parliament on 10 February, are subject to the negative process and are not debated. However, I am happy to take questions on the fees covered by those regulations in this debate.
	This year, we have succeeded in limiting the extent of our general increases, by taking a more targeted approach to fees adjustment. We have also introduced some new chargeable services. The targeted increases include settlement visas. This better reflects the value of the product we offer and aligns the fee with the amounts paid by migrants coming to the United Kingdom under economic routes. We have increased the fee for long-term visit visas to reflect the value which these products represent to applicants. There is a £50 increase to the fee for tier 1 post-study route, which better aligns this fee with that paid by other applicants under tier 1. There is an above inflationary increase for all applications made at a public inquiry office to better reflect the benefits associated with these applications.
	New fees include a fee for all UK-based dependant applications to reflect the fact that each individual within any given application bears a processing cost to us as well as, sometimes, an independent set of entitlements for the individual. The majority of applicants are unaffected by this increase. There will be a new pilot service for premium biometric enrolment and caseworking. This is an optional service and will not affect any of the standard services on offer. A new dependant relative settlement fee, covering parents, grandparents and certain other relatives joining family members who are already settled in the UK, will reflect the excellent benefits to applicants, including the right to stay indefinitely in the UK and exemption from our English language requirements. It also better aligns this fee with the end-to-end fees paid by other migrants who settle in the United Kingdom.
	We maintain our strong belief that fee levels should be sensitive to wider policy intentions and that the United Kingdom must remain internationally competitive. However, we are unable to deliver the immigration system demanded by the public if we keep fees at current levels. Our overall aim is to ensure that fees make an appropriate contribution to the end-to-end costs of the immigration system. I believe that these fees are in the best interests of the United Kingdom. I commend both instruments to the House.

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining these orders, which we support. I have a few probing questions. On the first immigration order, I understand that currently there are two types of automated gate at UK borders. The first type, e-passport gates, are designed for use by British citizens and EEA nationals who hold second-generation biometric passports and are being trialled at 10 locations in the UK. Where are the locations and how long will the trials last? When is full rollout across the UK expected? That should greatly reduce the number of people who have to queue in order to have their passport swiped.
	The second type of automated gate is based on a pre-enrolment scheme, which requires users to provide biometric and biographic data before they can use the system. I think that the noble Lord was talking about that type. The Explanatory Note to the order states:
	"In principle, regular travellers from any country may apply to be enrolled on the scheme".
	Can the Minister expand on that point? Which categories of regular traveller might not be allowed to enrol, because it suggests that there may be excluded categories? Can he also tell us what information will need to be supplied at the face-to-face interview with a border force officer that individuals apparently must have before being allowed to enrol, and what criteria are used by the officer to judge whether an individual is unlikely to abuse the scheme? It seems that the viability of the whole scheme and the notion of the automated gates providing us with adequate protection depends on the accuracy of the information that is taken at the first instance, and therefore the interview, right at the initiation of the scheme. It is important to understand what guidance is in place and what the officer will be seeking to do. What security standards are to apply to the storage of the biographical and biometric data that have been captured? We now have plenty of experience of things that can go wrong with data storage, so it would be helpful to know that.
	I understand that the type of gate that is to replace the present system will be simpler and easier to use, and I absolutely agree with that. But again, quite a lot of preparation has to go into getting this right. It would be helpful to know the timescale over which the next generation of pre-enrolment gate schemes will be rolled out. Is it to be a five or 10-year scheme, or one that will take six months? I gather that individuals who actually get enrolment will receive a form telling them the conditions that are applicable to their visa or entry conditions, but only when they have been granted their enrolment. Can the Minister say how the Government will ensure that these conditions-this comes to the business of how we monitor what happens when people get into the country-will not be abused? I mention the length of stay granted, prohibitions on employment, recourse to public funds and so on. We do not necessarily solve all these problems simply by having an automatic gate system.
	I am glad to see that the automated gates will not apply to student and marriage visitors as these are two categories which are heavily abused, and therefore it seems to us that we must have a different system for them. Presumably a lot depends ultimately, as I said earlier, on the authorisation that is received at the automated gate. How long will such an authorisation remain valid for? Will it be a standard period of time or is it going to vary according to the individual, and will there be any kind of checking system?
	The second order introduced by the Minister sets out the fees. We agree that it is sensible for the costs to be covered by the fees, and we accept that they therefore need to be realistic. Given the fiscal situation, that is doubly sensible. We have no objection to the principle of the notion of payment for the use and benefit of the range of immigration and nationality services, and we believe that those who use them should contribute proportionately to the costs. However, with a maximum increase, as I understand it, of 2.5 per cent for the majority of application routes versus a 6 per cent increase in UKBA costs for processing these applications over the past year, is there not likely to be a shortfall? Will the fees now actually cover the costs?
	My other question might be called a sensitivity analysis. It could be that the fees might be set a level which is so discouraging that instead of encouraging people to come to this country, we act to deter. Has any work been done on this kind of sensitivity which tells us what effect the level at which the fees are set might have on the number of people who choose to visit or come to this country for various purposes? This probably applies to a lot of government services, so it would be helpful to know whether any analysis lies behind the fee levels mentioned by the Minister.
	I turn finally to a topic that the Minister did not mention but which it would be helpful to know about-the Migration Impact Fund, towards which some of the fees go. Can he tell House for which routes the fees paid incorporate a contribution to the fund? It is not clear whether the fund is made up entirely of contributions or whether the Government also provide an input. Where, geographically, is the money likely to be spent? Is it spent generally or only in certain areas? We take the view that it is unlikely to be comprehensive in mitigating the effects of immigration, if only because there is not yet a firm limit on immigration levels. However, it would be interesting to know what kind of contribution it will make.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I start with the order which facilitates entry, as the noble Lord explained, into the UK by non-visa nationals who are lawfully entitled to enter by extending the automated gate system already in operation at certain UK airports for granting leave to enter. People coming in under this order will get prior authorisation by an immigration officer and will then be granted six months' leave to enter as they pass through the automated gate. They will no longer receive, as the Minister explained, a printed notice at the time of entry because the printing system currently in use frequently goes wrong and is put out of action for all other entrants until an engineer rectifies it. I shall come back to the question of the printed noticed no longer being made available to the person who is given leave to enter in a few minutes.
	The assumption, I suppose, is that only people unlikely to abuse the system will get through the checks by UKBA staff- but there will always be some exceptions and if someone remains, for example, beyond the permitted six-month limit and is stopped by the police for a reason not connected with his immigration status, how would the officer be able to verify that he is within his permitted leave to remain? He will no longer have the date on the written statement. There may be other circumstances in which a person is required to prove the,
	"manner and date of his entry into the United Kingdom",
	as provided by the amendment to Article 9 of the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 made by Article 5 of this 2010 order. Again, it is not clear how this can be done without some kind of record.
	The amendment to Article 9 treats the legal requirements as if they apply equally well to the new gates as to the current methods of entry. However, in other entry methods the passenger always has either a stamp in his passport or a print-out from one of the old-style gates. This order ignores that difference. If later there is any dispute or query about the person's entry to the UK, the passenger, like others, is still required to prove the manner and date of his entry in circumstances where, unlike the rest of the entrants, he is given no means of complying. When he comes to reply, I hope the Minister will explain how that problem will be solved.
	Secondly, why did the UKBA decide on a next-generation scheme based on face images when there is already an iris recognition system in operation at all Heathrow and Gatwick terminals as well as at Birmingham and Manchester? Would it not have been simpler to have one method of verifying a person's entitlement to enter through automated gates? As I understand it, there will now be two different systems in operation for different categories of entrant.
	Thirdly, in relation to the IRIS system, the Minister said in the Delegated Legislation Committee in another place that capacity was the reason for requiring re-registration by persons who had not used the system for longer than a given period. That system was due to improve, implying that at some point in the future the requirement could be dropped. Can the Minister give an estimate of when that point is likely to be reached?
	The £9 million cost of the ACS plus gates was paid for, we are told, by BAA. The Minister in another place told the Delegated Legislation Committee that that was in recognition of the benefits to the passenger. Is there not an inconsistency between making the ACS plus system free when services to providers by the UKBA for all passengers who are not entitled to come through automated gates are charged, in many cases at well over the rate needed to recover the cost of the service itself? If we are now looking to ensure that services enabling qualifying travellers to enter the UK are all self-funding, why exclude the automated gates, which in general are used by those who can well afford to pay?
	In addition, there was a cost of £1.4 million to install the IRIS system, which was paid for UKBA, plus an amount for the enabling background which is said to be commercially sensitive but which nevertheless the Minister said would be released as soon as possible. Has that moment now been reached? Can the Minister explain why this one element should be kept secret when the other components have all been published? If the IRIS system is highly reliable, as I understand, I underline the question of why we need two different recognition systems to operate at all our airports.
	I turn to the regulations. We were concerned at the extent of the powers given to the Secretary of State in Section 42 of the 2004 Act, mentioned by the Minister, to prescribe fees that are above the administrative cost of providing the service in question. That has enabled the Government to cross-subsidise to an extent that is unfair for certain users, and Parliament has no controls whatever over the levels charged in practice. We agree with the principle of cross-subsidisation while objecting to a particular charge, but we have to accept the package as a whole or vote against it, as my honourable friend did in another place. We would then have to oppose all the fees that are being charged, while certain of them may be perfectly acceptable.
	We also deplore the fact that while all fees have risen steeply since 2004, many people are not being given an adequate standard of service by UKBA. If we are asked to approve these fees, there should be some guarantee of service standards, including, for instance, the timeframes within which applications are processed. UKBA continues to fail to meet its own timeframes, and it considers that it has done a good job if it makes decisions promptly over an arbitrary percentage of cases, as set out in the customer charter. The Minister in another place said:
	"We are on track to be within all our service standards in all the key areas of work by March".-[Official Report, Commons, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 24/2/10; col. 16.]
	but he means a percentage of cases being dealt with inside the timeframe, not 100 per cent. There should be timeframes for deciding 100 per cent of the cases and, if deadlines are missed, there should be refunds to the individuals concerned.
	A related point is that where a decision is taken after the change in rules on an application made before the change, and the application met the old rule but not the new one, the UKBA should at least refund the fee. Preferably, though, the fair way to handle those cases would be to abolish retrospection entirely and to treat the application as being valid if it meets the requirements of the old rule, despite the fact that it was processed after the new rules had been introduced.
	Just as the noble Lord, Lord West, said in the context of the fees orders that historical legislation needs to be made easier to understand, the same should apply to the regulations. The Minister said that the consolidated fees regulations were available on the OPSI website, but I was unable to find them in the time available, so they are not very easy to access. Perhaps we simply need an improvement on the website concerned.
	In the impact assessment, the net benefit of the increased charges, after taking into account the expected reduction in the number of applications and the loss of income from migrants who will be deterred from coming into the UK, is given as £109 million. The accompanying text says that the projections made are regularly reviewed. Can the Minister provide a table of previous impact assessments, with the actual changes in the year after the increased charges were imposed, so that we can assess the accuracy of the forecasts that were made? On the particular increases which are now being imposed, how did the actual fees income in the most recent period for which the figures are available compare with the costs of providing the services? Are these increases, which are expected to generate an extra £147 million from immigration and visa fees, intended to restore break-even, as the noble Baroness was inquiring, or is the intention to make a profit on these activities?
	The fee charged for application for registration as a British citizen of a child born abroad to a UK mother and foreign father is kept for the time being at the £540 set last April. I take it there is no intention to put it up again this year, because it is not mentioned in the regulations. So far, since these children were first allowed to register-but only if they were born after 1983-almost 17,000 of them had done so. If all had been charged the £540 fee currently imposed, it would have cost them a total of £9 million. The children of foreign-born mothers and British fathers born over the same period got their citizenship for nothing. Now, the 1983 cut-off date has been abolished, but those who waited the longest for the gender discrimination in this part of our law to be removed will have to pay the full whack. That is manifestly unreasonable.
	My honourable friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon raised the question of the fee for a dependent relative settlement visa, which is being almost trebled from £585 to £1,680-that is about six times the cost of providing the service. He got no explanation from the Minister as to why the dependant should have to pay two and a half times as much as the head of household when the latter is working and the dependent relative may well not be. Similarly, the fee charged to a dependent relative for indefinite leave to remain is going up from £820 to £1,680-a little under five times the cost of providing the service. In his reply, the Minister said he had to judge which fees should be set at cost, and which should be set marginally above that level. Five or six times the cost is not "marginally above", and we are entitled to a more rational and detailed explanation as to how these enormous increases were calculated.
	The Minister agreed to look at my honourable friend's point that more women were dependent relatives than vice versa for the primary applicant. The public sector equality duty in Clause 148 of the Equality Bill, which we have been discussing, applies to the exercise of immigration and nationality functions as defined in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 18, including the immigration Acts on which these regulations depend. If the Minister's inquiries show that there is gross gender disparity between primary and dependent visa and ILR applications, how will the Government bring these regulations into conformity with the public sector duty?
	The Minister has just written to those who took part in the debate in another place. Among other things, he said that this would be explained in the impact assessment, and he gave the relevant web address. However, when I came to look it up I saw that the impact assessment gave no details at all about the relative numbers applying in head of household and dependent relative categories. On page 8, it says that there were no results in the evidence base, and no results were annexed to this impact assessment. I am afraid that the letter from the Minister to my honourable friend in another place was a little misleading.
	Finally, we are concerned about the absence of any power to permit the waiver of fees in specified circumstances for in-country applications, coupled with the limited classes of exemptions. My honourable friend also raised that matter. It is not a new feature of the regulations, but there is a general power of waiver for entry clearance applications, and there is no logical difference between the two classes. It is estimated that several hundred thousand irregular migrants are living in the UK. Some of them would like to submit applications to regularise their stay on grounds of long-term residence and family connections built up here over the years, but cannot do so because the payment of the fee specified for the application is well beyond the means of anybody who is not working, including those who are prohibited from working. If the person in that category has a job at all, it is in a low-paid and probably casual occupation. If the UKBA catches up with him or her and seeks to deport them, only then can they invoke Article 8 and-if successful-acquire the right to remain without payment of any fee. Surely it is perverse to make the assertion of a human right and the waiver of the application fee conditional on going through arrest and detention while the claim is considered.
	The Minister, in his reply to my honourable friend on that point, argued that it would be unfair to make the taxpayer foot the bill for applications made by irregular migrants who were advised that they had a good Article 8 case. In fact, the taxpayer will be liable for a much higher bill for the costs of the arrest, detention and court proceedings when the migrant is detected, which might have been unnecessary if he could have tested his right beforehand. The courts have already limited waiver powers in immigration and appeal cases in which the applicant is destitute; the same procedures might be applied in looking for applications for waivers in such cases. There would be severe penalties if a person made a false statement in asking for a waiver, as there are for other statements made by the applicant.
	In coming forward and asking for the application fee to be waived, a person makes himself visible to the UKBA and-if he does not have a good Article 8 case-for subsequent arrest and detention. More irregular migrants would have been detected and removed as a result of exercising such a waiver, which is supposed to be government policy. Far from wanting to discourage in-country applications, we would like to encourage long-term irregular migrants with solid Article 8 cases to come forward and submit them so that they can get on with their lives, either here if their claim succeeds or in their country of origin if it fails. Either way, it is a better solution for both the migrant and the taxpayer. We urge the Minister to consider that point seriously.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their input to the debate. With two speakers and just under 50 detailed questions, there is no doubt that anything to do with immigration and its rules is rather complicated. Maybe they are overcomplex, but in my short period in the Home Office I have learnt that one needs to have every option covered, which inevitably makes them more complicated. Trying to cover everything with an easy, sweeping statement does not do at all when working in this area, I am afraid.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, asked a number of specific points about gates. She was correct that there are two types of gates. There are 10 IRIS airport locations and 10 e-passport gate locations. The IRIS locations are Heathrow terminals 1 to 5, Manchester terminals 1 and 2, Gatwick north and south terminals, and Birmingham. The 10 e-passport locations are Manchester terminals 1 and 2, Gatwick north, Birmingham terminals 1 and 2, Luton, Stansted, East Midlands, Bristol and Cardiff.
	Where may people enrol and how will we ensure that the conditions are met? We check their immigration history and watchlists and question persons to assess their intention. If we find that they are abusing conditions, authorisation to use the gates, and obtain leave by passing gates, will be terminated straight away. Which category of passengers can use IRIS? All passengers are eligible. Passengers need to be regular travellers with no negative immigration history. Their passports must be genuine and valid. They must not be on the watchlist. If they have visa needs, they have to be genuine and valid. How long does the authorisation last? It lasts two years in general, or is linked to the validity of the passport and visa if they have less than two years' validity. An authorisation can be terminated if the UKBA wishes the person to seek entry at manual immigration control; for example, if we suspect that they may be abusing the immigration system. Therefore, it can be terminated at that stage.
	The noble Baroness raised a very valid point on data security. This has been an issue in the past. All the biometric and personal data collected or accessed by the UKBA in the operation of these gates are treated in confidence and are processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act. Under e-passport gates, the person's live facial image is checked against the facial image which is securely stored in an encrypted format on the chip within the passport. Under IRIS, a person's irises are photographed during enrolment. I am sure that a number of noble Lords have done that. These photographs are then converted into digital images. The photographs and digital images are stored in an encrypted format in a secure database which has very strictly controlled access. Under ASC Plus, fingerprints are stored on a secure UKBA database, with very strictly controlled access. BAA will not be able to access those databases.
	Generally, on the data storage side, we have learnt a lot of lessons. One always hesitates to say that that means we will not have problems-I am sure we will-because there is no doubt at all-I know this from my job as Cyber Security Minister-that as soon as you start collecting data in large amounts, it is always extremely difficult. Everybody needs to understand all the rules that need to be applied to the data. However, I think that we are much better at that now than we used to be.
	The noble Baroness asked about the fees covering the cost. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also touched on that. Our modelling ensures that these fees will generate about £800 million for 2010-11, so we believe that they will cover the cost. The noble Baroness asked about any modelling we have done on evidence of people coming to the UK and volume demand. We have no evidence to suggest that there is any link between visa fees and volume demand. I am not aware that we have done any sensitivity studies in advance of this, but we look to see whether there has been any such link. If I am wrong on that, I will get back in writing, but that is as I understand it.
	I have a rather complex breakdown of the Migration Impacts Fund in relation to visa applications, leave applications, ILR applications, PBS applications and nationality applications, so rather than go into it I will write to the noble Baroness with the breakdown of exactly how this is done. In broad brush terms, Scotland receives just under £3 million, Wales about £1.8 million and Northern Ireland about £1 million. As regards the breakdown within England, the totality is something like £54 million. I shall give a full breakdown of that.
	I think that covers most of the points the noble Baroness raised. If there is anything that I have missed, I shall be very happy to come back in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked a number of questions. As regards not getting notice of leave, the automated gates are used voluntarily. People can always use manual immigration to enter the country and obtain evidence of their leave. I was asked what would happen if a non-visa national was stopped by the police, given that he will not receive notice of leave. When he uses the gates, a record is generated. It indicates the individual's date, time and location of entry into the United Kingdom. The UKBA has access to these records and can use them to establish whether an individual has used the gates at that time, so the other law enforcement agencies can inquire of the UKBA, and then that data will be available. As I understand it, that is how they will be able to establish that fact. I am not sure of the exact mechanics of that when the person is stopped and whether he has to come back to the police station. I imagine that will be the case. If not, I will get back to the noble Lord on that.
	On why we are going from IRIS to facial recognition, I understand that facial is faster and in some ways more secure. I understand that IRIS is pretty secure, too, so am not 100 per cent happy with that answer. I will get back to the noble Lord on that but I think it is to do with the speed at which it can be done. I have already noticed and a number of noble Lords will have registered that the IRIS system is brilliant when hardly anyone is registered for it because there are only two or three of you going through that chain. I came back from Cairo on Tuesday night and there were about 18 people ahead of me. Each person is rather slower than those handing their passport in. One needs to be able to achieve this a little more rapidly.
	On high fees, it costs the UK Border Agency more than £2 billion to run the immigration system. We collect more than a third of this through fees for application and the services we offer. We review the fees on a regular basis to make appropriate changes as necessary. These fee proposals support our commitment to take forward the priority issue of strengthening the border. It is right that those who benefit directly from our immigration system-migrants, employers and education institutions-should make appropriate contributions towards the cost of the system and share the burden with the taxpayer.
	The Parliamentary Ombudsman recently published a report on UK Border Agency service delivery. We agree with his assessment that long-term progress on service delivery requires the agency to have clear and consistent priorities, good forward planning and adequate resources. This is what the noble Lord touched on. Our fee proposals will help provide these resources and enable the agency to make the progress on service delivery that the Ombudsman as well as our customers and stakeholders rightly want to see. This relates to timeliness and the other issues that the noble Lord touched on.
	On knowing the cost of the system, ACS Plus is still being worked on within BAA. BAA has not been able to give us a figure for the full costs to the UKBA. That is not really satisfactory. We will get that sorted out as soon as we possibly can. The noble Lord is absolutely right in spotting that. It is something we are working on but we have not yet been given the figure for that work.
	On refunds, we charge for consideration of the application and so do not offer refunds-the consideration is a cost to us as well.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the second leg of that point was that if you are not going to refund the fee paid by an individual before a rule change then there should not be this element of retrospection. You should consider the application as made under the old rule, not treat it as having been made under the new rule and then refuse for that reason.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I can see logic in what the noble Lord said. I will take that away and think about it. I will get back to him on that point.
	On timescales for ACS Plus, it is due to be installed at Heathrow Airport later this year. I will give an answer on the life of the scheme via a letter because it is quite complicated.
	On new income, new fees covered by the regulations will bring in more than £50 million in additional income. As I said, this will be used to help fund the overall cost of the immigration system including enforcement, immigration appeals, et cetera. I can do a breakdown of that but it is rather complicated and long-winded. That is the amount.
	I was a little concerned to hear from the noble Lord that when he went online he was not able to get this information. I will certainly look at that-it should be there. The regulations should be available in draft on the OPSI website. You should be able to get to them. Impact assessments should be there as well. Quite clearly, something is not working correctly. I will talk to the staff about this and see what has gone wrong. They should be available on that website. I was not aware of that. Clearly, if I have written and said they were there I will write to the noble Lord involved to apologise and will try to establish what the problem is.
	I do not believe that the nationality fee is discriminatory, but my answer would again be complex. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on that as well. I have said that in a response to a number of his questions, but I would otherwise have to stand at the Dispatch Box for rather a long time.
	I take the noble Lord's point that the fee is very high. It is priced above the cost of considering the application because it reflects benefit to the migrant-I touched on this in my opening remarks. The group of migrants concerned receives a very good package of benefits: indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK; exemption from the English language requirements; and access to public services such as health and social welfare. Setting the fee at this level better aligns with the end-to-end cost already paid by workers and other family relatives for settlement. Other migrants have to pay for leave to enter and then pay again for indefinite leave. It balances out, but I can understand why it looks initially to be rather high.
	We do not agree that the fees are discriminatory towards women. We charge the fee for all dependants irrespective of their gender or the gender of the main applicant. They receive a significant number of entitlements, as I mentioned. It is right to charge for each dependant, to reflect the fact that each individual bears a processing cost as well as other entitlements. It is fair that those seeking a benefit rather than the taxpayer should meet the costs of consideration. I have touched on it a number of times, but I believe that it is correct. Imposition of a fee is fair and proportionate.

Lord Avebury: How can the Minister know that when the impact assessment states plainly that gender equality was not looked at and no results were annexed to it which enable one to judge the relative numbers of dependants and heads of households who were applying to come here and whether there was a gross disparity between the two? If the heads of households were predominantly men and the dependent relatives were very largely women, the huge fees charged for relatives would thereby be discriminatory.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the fees apply whether it is to a grandfather, some cousin who cannot support himself, a grandson who cannot support himself or to a grand-daughter. We charge it across the board, so I do not believe that they are discriminatory. If the noble Lord is asking whether there are more females than males, the answer is that there probably are, but we are not discriminating on that issue. It is probably fair to say that there are more women than men in that group. I do not know whether we know exactly what the split is; if we do, I shall get back to the noble Lord.
	On fee waiver, if we allow a system to operate where a migrant can raise a claim without a fee, it would encourage migrants to remain unlawfully in the UK and submit speculative claims, which has an impact on the end-to-end costs of the system. I fear that that I have perhaps not answered every question that the noble Lord asked, but if there is anything significant that he feels that I have missed, I should be very happy to write to him.
	Overall, our aim is to ensure that our proposals make an appropriate contribution to securing our borders-in terms of the gates, for example-and to funding the immigration system. As such, I commend both statutory instruments to the House.
	Motion agreed.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2010

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2010
	7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion to Approve

Moved By Lord West of Spithead
	That the draft order laid before the House on 20 January be approved.
	Relevant Document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
	Motion agreed.

Employee Study and Training (Qualifying Period of Employment) Regulations 2010

Employee Study and Training (Qualifying Period of Employment) Regulations 2010 
	 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion to Approve

Moved By Lord Young of Norwood Green
	That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1 February be approved.
	Relevant Document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, the draft regulations that have been laid before the House are provided for under Section 63 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by Section 40 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.
	From next month-6 April, to be precise-this section will confer on eligible employees the right to ask their employer for time to train. It has support from the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and from the party opposite, as last year's valuable debate in this House demonstrated. This provision will apply initially to employees in organisations with 250 or more employees. In April 2011 it will be extended to apply to employees in organisations of all sizes. We are implementing this right in two stages so that small and medium-sized organisations have more time to prepare for these new regulations.
	The draft regulations provide that only individuals who have been in continuous employment with their employer for at least 26 weeks are eligible to make a request for time to train under the new procedures. The decision to set that 26-week minimum has been taken after careful reflection and primarily for two reasons. First, we think it is right that employers should be required to consider requests only from people with whom they have established a working relationship and those who have demonstrated a degree of loyalty to the business. Secondly, when the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill came before the House, there was concern that a new right of this sort might cause further administrative burdens on organisations. The Government share that concern, which is why the right to request time to train has been closely modelled on the flexible working arrangements, including alignment with the point at which an employee can make requests under those arrangements so that entitlement accrues at the same point. This will allow organisations to introduce the new arrangements with a minimum of adjustment to their existing systems. Employers will also be required to consider only one request from an employee in any 12-month period. It is worth mentioning that this 26-week condition does not prevent or limit an employer from considering an employee's training and development needs at any other time, if that is what they wish to do.
	This is not, therefore, a right conferred on employees at the expense of their employers, but one intended to be of mutual interest. Requests made under this right must explain how the employee's performance is expected to improve as a result of training and how this will benefit the employer's business. The commercial advantages that accrue to companies which undertake to improve the skills of their workforce have been established conclusively. We know also that many employers take the training needs of their staff extremely seriously. As employees exercise this new right, it is hoped that more employers will be encouraged to become more involved in training, involve their staff more in strengthening their business and derive the benefits. At the same time, and no less importantly, it will spur many employees to think about and take responsibility for their own training needs.
	One issue raised during the passage of the legislation was the need to take account of what good employers do already when managing training and development within their organisations. Amendments were tabled suggesting that this could be achieved by providing employers with an additional reason to refuse requests for time to train where they had already carried out a training review of some nature. Those amendments did not succeed. However, I remind noble Lords that I made a commitment to conduct a review of the reasons for refusal available to employers. This review will consider whether, in practice, employers need any other reasons to help them to manage requests more effectively under this right; and the review will be completed before the right is extended to all employees in April 2011.
	These draft regulations mark an important step towards making sure that the future skills needs of employers and employees alike are met effectively, and I commend them to the House.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft regulations and I agree with him that training is vital, as is the involvement of employers. But it is all very well for the Government to lay regulations such as these. This is fiddling while Rome burns.
	Training provision in the UK is not fit for purpose-it is bureaucratic and inflexible, it fails to meet the needs of people who want to improve their skills and it fails to meet the needs of employers' requirements for skilled workers. We need to re-engineer the highly bureaucratic and ineffective Train to Gain scheme, strip out the burdens from FE funding and inspection and refocus the currently ineffective careers advice services provided by Connexions and the adult careers service. We need to reduce bureaucracy dramatically and, as we on these Benches have proposed, redirect the funding into substantial numbers of apprenticeships and training places at FE colleges.
	The number of young people not in education, employment or training is now more than 1 million, and 950,000 young people are unemployed. Our figures are among the worst in Europe. We cannot and must not go on like this. In 2006, the Government commissioned the Leitch report, which recommended that the UK should aim to be a world leader in skills by 2020. However, 16 per cent of young people in the UK still leave school without any qualifications. How do the Government think that the Leitch ambitions can be achieved?
	The Institute of Directors-I declare and interest as a member-claims that one-third of members' businesses are affected by a shortage of graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and that the situation is worsening. More than half anticipate being affected by a shortage of STEM subject graduates in the next 10 years. Again, will the Minister say how the Government will address this?

Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing and explaining the regulations. I have just a few questions. During the passage of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, we debated at length the statutory rights of employees to request time to undertake business-relevant study or training. As he mentioned, we recognised that many employers actively support training. However, according to the National Employers Skills Survey 2007, one-third of employers do not train their staff, and 8 million employees each year do not have any formalised training.
	As the Minister said, the regulations apply where an employee has been continuously employed for a period of not less than 26 weeks. Until next year, the legislation is intended to apply only to employers of more than 250 people. I note that only 33 small firms responded to the Small Firms Impact Test. That seems a very small sample. We are concerned that for many small businesses, requests for training may be time-consuming to consider, and time out to train would cause significant disruption to business and consequent bad feeling if the request were turned down. What action will the Government take to assist small businesses to implement the legislation next year?
	In Committee, my noble friend Lady Sharp asked about the training needs of 16 to 18 year-olds. In respect of this regulation, will the 26-week rule apply also to young people? Their training needs might change more rapidly than those of the adult workforce. Will it be assumed that they will already be in a structured training programme?
	The impact assessment estimates that the overall net benefit to the economy will be around £227 million in the first year and £472 million in the second. It goes on to estimate that for the public sector, the worst case would be a net cost of £37 million in the first year and £78 million in subsequent years. Will the Minister clarify that this is indeed the expectation for the public sector, and that it is envisaged that the sector will always bear these levels of annual cost?
	We know that the regulations carry the support of the CBI and of the TUC, and that further evaluations will take place before they are extended. With those provisos, we support them. I hope that the Minister will offer reassurances on the points raised, and look forward to his reply.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: I think that I thank noble Lords for their comments, although the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, saw this as an opportunity to range far and wide. I do not think what he said is true, if we look at the track record of investment in training. I can comment only as I have done on a number of occasions on the abysmal situation that we inherited from the Opposition on the minimum number of apprenticeships. As I have said many times, if I likened apprenticeships to National Health Service patients, they were in intensive care, with only 65,000 in 1997 and only 27 per cent completing them. Under this Government, we now have more than 250,000 apprentices, 71 per cent of whom complete them.
	I welcome the latter-day conversion of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and of Her Majesty's Opposition to apprenticeships. He is fundamentally wrong on Train to Gain. We are expanding apprenticeships anyway, with another 30,000 advanced apprenticeships planned and more through public procurement. Should the Opposition ever find themselves in government, we will see how well they manage to succeed.
	To some extent, I agree that the careers advice service is not perfect. It can and should be improved. Have we made progress on the Leitch ambitions? I would say that we have and we are working towards delivering the aims set out in Skills for Growth. We set out our priorities in the skills investment strategy and we are currently rolling out the fifth competitive bidding round for the National Skills Academy programme and hope to announce successful expressions of interest in spring 2010. We are currently designing a joint investment programme. The UKCES will produce its first national skills audit and is looking at simplifying matters. I believe, as do many employers, that the training that we have made available through Train to Gain and apprenticeships is a success story.
	Turning to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, it is true that I have often described that third of employers as believing that they can defy the force of gravity. It is unfortunate that we see this as a burden for small firms. Is it really true? We focus a lot of attention on trying to assist SMEs with targeting training that they are asked for. All the evidence shows that the companies that train will survive the recession. The ones that do not are two and a half times more likely to fail. We should not see this as a burden. Good firms train already. That is the reality. If anything, we hope that the regulations will do two things: first, that they will encourage employees to think about their own training requirements; and, secondly, that over a period of time we will change the culture in that third. If that group does not respond to a reasonable request from an employee with regard to training, eventually that could result in an employment tribunal. We do not want that; we want people to be persuaded of the argument.
	With regard to young people, we are in a state of change. Perhaps I can write more specifically on that but we are raising the participation age. We are saying that in 2013 every young person will either be in education or training. There will be no young person in work who is not in training. We have mandated a minimum of 280 guided learning hours. On the impact assessment figures, I am looking towards the Box, but I shall have to write to the noble Baroness rather than attempt to guess because it is important to get that right. I hope that with those answers and assurances noble Lords can endorse the regulations.
	Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 6.03 pm.